Rant #3 – In Time of War (Patriot Act)

Is the Patriot Act (which was recently extended and expanded, though some limitations were placed upon federal and local agencies) worth the liberties is restricts or intrudes upon? What are the pros; what are the cons? Is it a con? Or is it an evil necessity?

Here is the text: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/hr3162.pdf

IN TIME OF WAR, STEPS HAVE HAD TO BE TAKEN TO TRACK, PROSECUTE AND AVOID FUTURE DOMESTIC ENEMIES.
But these policies are strictly for wartime purposes, and even then they must be bound to the constitutional guarantees of liberty. Or, shall I say "blessings of liberty". Yeah, I like that. What I don't like is the fact that the overtly moderate Bush administration (and Alberto Gonzalez in particular) are giving us the impression that the government has enemies among it's own people, and they must be stopped at all costs... ALL COSTS. No, the constitution was written clear so that the American people would never be considered enemies of the government. In fact, the constitution takes great pains to emphasize what could be considered a threat to the PEOPLE among their government. Not the other way around. I understand that for the sake of safety and liberty we must all be willing to live within some level of order and libertarian compromise - A truly libertarian utopia can never exist among human beings - but this must be constantly regarded as a contagious and dangerous (if unbridled) philosophy (that is, limiting people's freedom in the attempt of protecting them).

WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
The Patriot Act is a wartime provision given to the government in time of our "war against terror", and ought to be limited exclusively to pursing justice on that front alone. Never ought this to be the case for the demostic justice system; tracking, tapping, raiding, collecting information on individuals without proper proof of suspicion or criminal activity. And let me say one more thing to those who say we've been winning the war on Terror because of provisions like the Patriot Act... The primary reason for our victory is because our leadership has the resolve to take this war to THEIR doorstep and on THEIR turf, not here. Albeit a dragged out effort with a few human errors thrown in, this war has successfully kept the enemy preoccupied in their own backyard rather than above Central Park. Anyway...

SHALL WE JAIL EVERY SUSPECT WITHOUT BAIL OR CONTACT BECAUSE OF UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS?
Would the Bush administration get away with Japanese-American style concentration camps today, simply because we have citizens who are reasonably suspicious? No. It was wrong to do such a thing to the Japanese groups then, and we realize it now, long after the damage was done and the trust destroyed. But then, in the heat of war and the fear of tragedy, we looked the other way while innocent people - and the American Ideal - were violated. Now we stand at another crossroads today: should the government be allowed to evaluate, uninhibited, whether mass numbers of Americans ought to be tracked, CIA style? Or shall we maintain that the greatest danger to a truly free society is a govenment unbound by principle law and unbiased justice? Some would say that the dangers facing us today are historically unique to this nation and call for drastic and sometimes uncomfortable measures in order to assure our physical safety.

I INSIST THAT OUR GREATEST FEAR OUGHT TO BE FEAR ITSELF (Salute Mr. Roosevelt),
and that my personal liberty is of higher priority than even my own physical safety. America is blessed to be remarkably safe and civilized. We have never known (not even after 9/11) the horrors of daily terror and militia raids, like other poor souls have suffered in other freedom-starved nations. Quite frankly, I would rather live my life holed up on my property with a constitutionally protected shotgun above my fireplace (and fully free to decide my own destiny) than surrender one more right after another in the name of "homeland security" to a government that regards me as a possible suspect.

TO ME, AN UNBRIDLED AND UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT IS MORE A "TERROR THREAT"
than an uncivil, violent criminal. Give me my gun and the liberty to use it, and I'll show you true "homeland security". (Sorry, I needed to satisfy a temporary rhetorical urge!)

NONETHELESS, GOVERNMENT IS ENDOWED WITH THE PURPOSE AND MISSION OF PROTECTING IT'S CITIZENS. 
Sobeit, and may it remain a government OF the People that protects them, not merely a government TO the People. Why can't our "patriotic" president speak optimistically of the quality and sincerity of the American people to protect themselves, rather than instilling fear into all of us of an "enemy within" (and our subsequent need for only THEM to protect us)? And even further, to use this wartime policy against our "innocent until proven guilty" criminal suspects is itself criminal and a "terror threat" for us all. Arrest the men and women... but then charge them! Do not hold them in cells for three years until enough evidence to build a thin case is collected!

HERE I DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THOSE WHO WOULD MAKE CLEAR ACTS OF WAR AND THOSE WHO ARE STILL PROTECTED BY
the People for the freedom OF the People. I'm sorry, Mr. Gonzalez (and retired Mr. Ashcroft), but you'll have to give us the same freedom to profile you and limit your freedoms long before I'll let you come through my door without a warrant or reasonable suspicion. And even then, your homeland security will learn from me what true patriotism is over a hot chat by my fireplace.

Think about it...