Many hundreds of thousands of United States lives, both civilian and military, have been sacrificed while upholding and defending the Constitution.
That same Constitution, which is the only document that separates the United States from the rest of the planet, has been piecemeal dismantled and summarily dismissed by those that would wave a flag of patriotism while at the same time waging preemptive war against not one, but two sovereign nations that posed no real or immediate threat to the safety of the United States - and have no proven or even slightly inferred relationship to the horrific attacks of September 11.
The sociopolitical and legal events that have transpired over the past 4 years are textbook application of Joseph Hegel's dialectic process, with the complete eradication of the United States Constitution as a final synthesis.
For someone who opposes the concept of world government as vehemently as you have proclaimed, surely you would see that the United States Constitution is the only roadblock that impedes that eventual goal?
No one would argue against your assertion that taking the "big picture" into context is the most appropriate way of divining relationships and causal links that would serve as indicators for terrorist involvement. The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was created for the express purpose of supporting lawful investigations, while at the same time upholding the fundamental precept that United States Citizens are innocent until proven guilty, and are guaranteed protections against any form of State or federal government-sanctioned tyranny.
This new ruling removes yet another critical component of judicial oversight, namely that law enforcement may now embark upon lengthy and protracted fishing expeditions to investigate United States Citizens that are not accused or suspected of any type of wrongdoing, all in the name of counter terrorism.
US policy is what needs gutted and reformed, not the United States Constitution.
Regards
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: d..._at_geer.org
Date: Friday, Feb 10, 2006 12:33 pm
Subject: [TSCM-L] Re: Patriot Act gets even more patriotic
Greg Perry writes:
-+----------------
|
|
http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6037598.html
|
| Police blotter: Patriot Act e-mail spying approved
| By Declan McCullagh
| Staff Writer, CNET News.com
| Published: February 9, 2006, 5:46 PM PST
|
| What: The Justice Department asks a judge to approve Patriot Act e-mail
| monitoring without any evidence of criminal behavior.
| <snip>
If I was trying for a serious clearance the
majority of the investigation would be of
the pattern of my associations with others
on grounds that the big picture is the better
picture. A serious clearance is about an
acceptance of the potential for serious risk
by evaluating the individual in the context
of that big picture. It seems to me actually
quite logical to do that sort of big picture
assessment of whether a serious risk is or is
not present by looking at the nature of the
person's associations. Doesn't mean that I
"like" it, but it does seem logical: Larger
risk potential => wider field of view; smaller
potential => narrower. The issue then, is
whether the risk estimate (large v. small) that drives the process is genuine or dumb,
which may well come down to what are the
default assumptions: Dangerous until proven
undangerous, or undangerous until proven
dangerous, with the unfortunate caveat that
"proven dangerous" probably requires some
direct casualties which then begets some
institutional casualties ("You failed to
prevent X so X is your fault, not the lousy
perp who has some centuries' old grievance
and an unfortunate childhood").
--dan
---------
All causes are lost causes without fewer people.
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:21 CST