Political Compass #39: Our civil liberties are being curbed excessively.

Great Debates
21

I’d suggest that the point isn’t really how many people are being denied habeas corpus and the like, but that new legislation allows it. In the UK only 11 people, none of them British, are being held without trial and I still think this stinks to high heaven and represents an excessive curb on our civil liberties, and this is without the far more draconian, 1971-UK-like legislation in the US.

And the appeal to security is, I feel, a red herring characteristic of so many other examples of authoritarian legislation throughout history. I can see little in this legislation which will prevent another 9/11, or prevent terrorists as determined as those who carried it out entering the US. The former would simply hijack a plane bound for the US, and the latter would simply fly to Mexico.

I guess that, ultimately, if it’s only a few who are arbitrarily confined, or it’s foreigners who have their rights impugned so, it’s rather difficult to convince people (especially in the US, where other people’s shoes have never fit particularly well IMO) that a mechanism ignoring habeas corpus is a “big deal” even if it is only used sparingly. As the statistics rack up, and more and more US citizens feel that they have been dealt with unjustly, I suspect the new legislation will come under greater fire.

Until then, one can only paraphrase the poem composed by Pastor Niemller in 1939:

*First the foreign residents were interned for days without recourse to due legal process, blotting their record so much that they lost their jobs and couldn’t find another one.
And I did not speak out, because I was not a foreigner.

Then the jounalists required a special visa, only required elsewhere in Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe.
And I did not speak out, because I was not a journalist.

Then artists and performers from around the world required $4000 and 6 months notice to apply for the chance to perform in the US.
And I did not speak out, because I was not an artist.

Then students found that they had to drop out halfway through the university courses they had already spent a fortune on because of visa delays.
And I did not speak out, because I was not a student.

Then thousands of US citizens missed flights representing billions of unrecompensed dollars and work-hours on an utterly arbitrary basis which had nothing to do with normal baggage checks.
And I did not speak out, because it didn’t happen to me.

And then I fell foul of the new legilation.
And everyone else turned a blind eye.*

Melodramatic, perhaps, but legislation like this is a slope I consider all too slippery.

22

This is pretty deep into tin foil hat territory. Do you seriously think that the authors of the Patriot Act legislation, as well as the 99 senators who signed it are all simply using terrorism as an excuse to slip in some authoritarian legislation? They weren’t actually concerned with preventing terrorism when they signed the Act, only weeks after 9/11? I find this notion silly.

Of course there will always be ways for terrorists to attack us. There will always be things outside of our control. That’s no excuse to suggest giving up and not trying to tighten up security here. I actually tend to agree that the existing steps the government has taken are insufficient to stop another attack. That’s because they lack the political will to take the dramatic steps required to have any effect. (Troops on the border, take the gloves off dealing with terrorists overseas, etc.)

23

Not solely, no - terrorism simply makes authoritarian legislation easier. Laws which erode civil liberties have historically been presented with an appeal to protection from an enemy, regardless of whether they actually offer any greater protection. I’m not suggesting that these 99 senators have any malicious intent, merely that they are being overly hasty and myopic.

24

Do you seriously think that this bill was written from scratch in the time between the attack and the time it was introduced?

25

Ah, er… huh?

I don’t know if it was written from scratch or not. Should I care? Do you have any reason to believe that it was not? What are you selling?

26

Gotcha.

I would tend to agree with this sentiment from Sentient. :smiley:

But, although a climate of fighting terrorism does make authoritarian tendancies more abundant, I do not agree that they have been a problem since 9/11. They could be. As a libertarian type I’d be the first to complain if I thought they were. But, I just don’t see it. If anything I think it’s been very healthy that there is such concern and debate about our civil liberties regarding what’s been going on. The only think I take issue with is the constant lies and exaggerations regarding the Patriot Act. IMO, it’s best to wait until there really is something that erodes our liberty before crying wolf the way that some have over this harmless legislation.

BTW, I do agree that it is a problem holding people without trial. However, it’s not limited to terrorism. Back in the 80’s weren’t people held for years on end without trial because of the child abuse scare craze? Sentient mentions that England is currently holding people without trial, so the US is not alone. I do think these things are cause for concern, but this kind of stuff has always been there and is not new. If anything, the current climate is better in this regard than in the past. For instance, the Japanese interment camps would never be allowed to happen now.

27

I thought the inference was obvious – the “Patriot Act” was not a rationally crafted response to the attack, but rather an existing wish list pushed through once the attack created an opportunity.

28

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

29

Incidentally, the BBC has just completed a controversial documentary claiming that Al Qaeda barely even exists as an entity as such, that 9/11 was a one-off, that Madrid was pretty nothing to do with Binladen, and that exaggerating the threat of an “enemy” allows government to demonstrate its importance to the electorate, thus gaining powers it would not otherwise be allowed.

30

And I suppose this post would be equally appropriate in both this and the “#38: No broadcasting institution should receive public funding” thread, re. the bias of the BBC.

31

Well, I haven’t seen the documentary yet, but the themes of the series are supposedly far wider than Al Qaeda, concentrating on terrorism and governments’ response to it (and indeed instigation of it as in France in 1794, which I actually cited in my OP) throughout history. This is a serious theme, and the producer seeks to distance himself from the “political documentary” descriptor applied to eg. Michael Moore. I’ll let you know (indeed, you might even see it in Denmark eventually).

32

Most people here can see BBC directly, either through satellite or cable. I however have had to get rid of my television (or rather the receiver of it) since I could not morally stand to support the Danish broadcasting company.

33

Heh heh, I admire your principles, Rune - perhaps you could watch it at a friend’s house. (And since I’m paying for the BBC but you get the benefit, could you not consider it a gift given on the condition that you don’t trash your receiver? :))