May 15, 2006
Michael Hampton on Freedom, Privacy.
Mike Hampton has a good post today on Freedom, Privacy and Government. As some of you may recall IÂ’m not too fond of the Patriot Act. Not because of it'is use against terror but because of how it will be twisted to other purposes. The natural progression off all governments is to gain more power. To slowly trim freedoms so that eventually none remains. IÂ’m all for taking it to the terrorists as hard as you can. But I think there were already plenty of laws available to do so. By limiting our freedom we hand them a victory. My opinion is go after the terrorists, but congress has to pass laws to make them appear to be doing something. You might think that after 200 years the congress could take a day off as much of the work had been done. But the trend every year is more and more law. Freedom here was a function of our remote frontier location. There were laws just no Law. Each generation finds itself a bit less free and a bit less private. At what point does freedom become not freedom? Discuss.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Posted by: Howie at
09:58 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You mean you would not trust the Worst president with the same powers that you have given to the BEST ?
Posted by: john Ryan at May 15, 2006 10:13 AM (TcoRJ)
2
I read somewhere that Thomas Jefferson chose Washington, D.C., as the site for the new nation's capital because it was hot, muggy, humid, full of mosquitoes and just generally unpleasant during the summer, thus creating a strong incentive for Congress to adjourn for several months out of the year.
Then came air conditioning.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at May 15, 2006 10:21 AM (FVbj6)
3
I donÂ’t trust any of them any further that I can throw them.
One of the things that bothered me was the politicians coming out to defend Ernie Fletcher last week. “it’s a stupid law anyway!” , “really a very minor issue and politically motivated prosecutor”. So on and so forth.
Last time I checked judges donÂ’t buy those arguments but a politician in an impeachment proceeding might.
It's the laws are for thee and not for me attitude. Last time I checked the "it's a stupid law defense" was not available to ordinary people.
Posted by: Howie at May 15, 2006 11:25 AM (D3+20)
4
The "it's a stupid law" defense was available to ordinary people, but judges absolutely hate it. It's called jury nullification. It probably happens once or twice a year now, but it was a major factor in ending alcohol prohibition in the 20's and 30's -- almost no jury would convict, precisely because it was a stupid law.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at May 15, 2006 11:30 AM (FVbj6)
5
True but how many can afford the risk to take it that far.
Posted by: Howie at May 15, 2006 12:30 PM (D3+20)
6
Feel the crunch ... then impeach ...
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 15, 2006 12:48 PM (FCC6c)
7
Catching terrorists requires human intelligence obtained by focusing on small select groups of people. Terrorising the general public just requires large scale indiscriminate surveillance!
*** What I want to be when I grow up: a tall tree, or the itching powder in Big Brother's jockstrap! ***
*** Freedom's Friends: titter with Tiffany (www.nearlyperfectprivacy.blogspot.com) and weep with Witness (www.witness.org) ***
Posted by: Little Acorn at May 19, 2006 10:57 AM (LIaFd)
18kb generated in CPU 0.0235, elapsed 0.0987 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.0916 seconds, 246 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
118 queries taking 0.0916 seconds, 246 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
