Or you asking about freedom as a philosohical absolute, as living up to our own aspirations, or in comparison to some other place? Or are you just trying to stir up shit and be a jerk?
I think that most people here are being paranoid; I also think that paranoia about loss of freedom is a good thing. I don’t know enough to give an opinion on the law itself, but I would suggest that people differentiate between Bush and the Patriot act. After all, do you really think that the Democrats will repeal it in 2005 / 2009 / 2013 or whenever?
Yes, I do.
Sheesh.
Quiz:
In what year, and under which administration, did it become legal for the feds to break into homes?
I hope for your sake you’re under 30 and can use youth and inexperiences as an excuse.
If I recall correctly, the Civil War-era income tax was in fact temporary, and was dropped after the war. The current income tax was imposed after passage of a Constitutional Amendment permitting it in the early part of the twentieth century, about fifty years later.
I will admit you may be right, BrotherCadfael. I don’t recall correctly, unfortunately having been very young at the time - about -110 years. 
Actually, I’m forty-eight, and not in the least naive. The conservatives (the decent ones, of whom I’ve met quite a few) are pretty naive, in that they seem to believe that it’s easy to escape from the cycle of poverty and ignorance with a little bit of work, but I’m not especially naive.
I think there are bad and power hungry politicians of every persuasion. But in my experience, the Dems on the whole have shown much less interest in my lifetime in prying into the personal affairs of normal citizens than have the Pubs. The Pubs seem to be against intrusive government as long as we’re talking about things like regulation of business. But when it comes to free speech, civil liberties, etc., the Dems seem to be quite a bit more enthusiastic than the Pubs. Apparently libertarianism begins (and pretty much ends) with the pocket book for the Republicans. Most of the soi-disant libertarians I hear and see will stand for (or support, even enthusiastically) the curtailment of just about every freedom you can think of as long as you let them keep a few more bucks a year.
The Dems will be running on the campaign issue (among others) of repeal of many elements of the Patriot Act. I don’t think they’ll be inclined (or dumb enough to try) to weasle out if they get into power. I could be wrong. But let’s put it this way - who’s more likely to try to eliminate these things - the people who proposed them and put them into place in the first place, or the people who are publicly decrying them?
Hard to say. Sneak and peek warrants aren’t new to law enforcement in general (I recall reading about them several years ago), and it wasn’t (AFAIK) a federal action initially. Delayed notification for other searches didn’t feel far behind to me. A person can enter my home without my permission and without my knowledge. Just because we’ve put “breaking in” into the law books as ok for certain individuals doesn’t reassign the action, any more than calling it self-defense would mean no one was “really” killed.
This was a good one (dont know them though) …
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040615/03
2 Professors Are Indicted Over Use of Bacteria in an Art Project
A federal grand jury issued indictments against an art professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo who used bacteria in his work, and against a genetics professor at the University of Pittsburgh who prosecutors say illegally supplied the microbes to the art professor.
The answer to that is supposed to be “because you’re suspected of terrorist acts.” Sadly, they might suspect you simply because you have an accent or olive skin… I suppose I didn’t ever expect this “tool” wouldn’t be abused like all others, but it is sad. However, I think it boils more down to (some of) the individuals responsible for implementation sucking than the laws being sinister. Why is it that so often the people who are least suited to have powers like this are the ones who most want it?
The patriot act caused me to rethink going to Canada with a US airline and instead I paid 100 Euro more and took a direct flight with a European airline. It hurt the American airline in question and their employees, which is a shame, but I value my own safety more than foreign jobs. It’s most unfortunate, as I’ve been going to either the USA, Canada or London for vacation regularly in the last 6 years, but after 9/11 and the measurements implemented by the US government, I don’t feel it’s a safe place to be for a foreigner at the moment. I do hope to go back in 2005 for a wedding of a friend of mine. We shall see, if that’s possible then.
Yep. If they control both the Legislative and the Executive Branches.
(This will be my 11th Presidential vote.)
Even the name the “Patriot Act” makes me ill. It makes blatant use of a specific propaganda technique.
IMO, we are not as free as we were during the period lasting from about January 1974 until the end of 2000.
I understand that Canadian airlines and airports are hoping to pick up a lot of business serving people transiting between Europe and South/Central America, who previously might have gone via New York.
Apparently the US requires that all people touching US soil go through US customs and immigration, even if they are merely changing planes to get on an outbound international flight. In Canada, connecting passengers do not have to pass through customs and immigration if they are headed out of the country on their next flight.
After the Arar case*, Canadians are a lot more hesitant about changing planes in the States.
*A Canadian citizen born in Syria was traveling from Tunisia to Montreal via JFK airport in New York. He was detained by US immigration, shipped to Syria, and tortured for alleged terror connections. There’s a big inquiry about it now.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=236124&highlight=Arar
Original thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=139651&highlight=Arar
Slight hi-jack but… I hear this a lot, but I’ve never seen any data that supports this notion. Can you provide any cites ? AFAIK the US has neither the highest per cap. immigration, neither the least stringent conditions, neither the simplest process etc.
Maybe the idea that the US has liberal immigration policies is a conflation with easier access to citizenship for those who have already successfully immigrated ?
Regarding the OP and levels of personal freedom - maybe what’s important is the direction the country’s taking - though the incidences of abuse of sweeping police powers are fairly rare, the trend’s kind of worrisome.
I have no love for Bush, but in all fairness that statement is incorrect. You can wear anti-Bush shirts all you want in West Virginia, you just can’t wear one to a Bush Rally, which is probably in an enclosed place that Bush or someone supporting Bush rented. If hip night clubs have the right to not let you in because you dress like a geek then surely the Bush team has the right to do what they did. I’d guess its the same in the UK too.
Another brain on the pile…
IMNSHO, we are not as free as we were during the period from Jan 1974 to September 1984.
Did you even read my further expansion on that response, or do you just like making snarky one-liners? You seem to think you’re a wit. I think you’re half right.
<Moderator Hat: ON>
Directly insulting somebody in a slightly more creative way is still directly insulting somebody and is therefore against the rules. Stop it. Now.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
<Moderator Hat: OFF>