Do Americans Care About Big Brother?

[Jack]

Via Time Magazine online:

A quick tally of the record of civil liberties erosion in the United States since 9/11 suggests that the majority of Americans are ready to trade diminished privacy, and protection from search and seizure, in exchange for the promise of increased protection of their physical security. Polling consistently supports that conclusion, and Congress has largely behaved accordingly, granting increased leeway to law enforcement and the intelligence community to spy and collect data on Americans. Even when the White House, the FBI or the intelligence agencies have acted outside of laws protecting those rights — such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — the public has by and large shrugged and, through their elected representatives, suggested changing the laws to accommodate activities that may be in breach of them. In all the examples of diminished civil liberties, there are few, if any, where the motivating factor was something other than law and order or national security. There are no scandalous examples of the White House using the Patriot Act powers for political purposes or of individual agents using them for personal gain. The Justice IG report released Thursday, for example, examined some 50,000 National Security Letters issued in 2006 to see whether the FBI misused that specialized kind of warrantless subpoena. The IG found some continuing abuse of the power, but blamed it for the most part on sloppiness and bad management, not nefarious intent. In a press release accompanying the report, Fine said, "The FBI and Department of Justice have shown a commitment to addressing these problems." For now, however, civil libertarians will have to continue to argue that the danger lies not in how the government's expanded powers are being used now, but how they might be used in the future. So far, that argument hasn't convinced the people.

There's an old joke; The two most destructive attitudes in society are ignorance and apathy...but I don't know and I don't care. It seems this may no longer be a joke.

Do the words attributed to Ben Franklin apply here? "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety", used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759). It could be argued that the colonialists could not envision the threats we now face and that Franklin (or Richard Jackson or whoever) would not have been so absolute in saying that had they lived today.

Is security and national defense sufficient cause to restrict liberty and add conditions to our freedoms? Or are those concepts being used by a malevolent government in order to suppress dissent and control the population through fear and intimidation?

These are perhaps the most important questions we face as we move into the 21st century.

[Jack]

Glenn Greenwald, in a Salon.com opinion piece, provides a refutation of the points in the previous Time article. While he doesn’t challenge the underlying premise that the U.S. government is acting in ways detrimental to and incompatible with our Constitution, he does question the conclusion Time reached, that Americans just don’t care.

No matter how corrupt and sloppy the establishment press becomes, they always find a way to go lower. Time Magazine has just published what it purports to be a news article by Massimo Calabresi claiming that “nobody cares” about the countless abuses of spying powers by the Bush administration; that “Americans are ready to trade diminished privacy, and protection from search and seizure, in exchange for the promise of increased protection of their physical security”; and that the case against unchecked government surveillance powers “hasn’t convinced the people.” Not a single fact — not one — is cited to support these sweeping, false opinions. Worse still — way worse — this “news article” decrees the Bush administration to be completely innocent, even well-motivated, even in those instances where technical, irrelevant lawbreaking has been found… Does Calabresi or his Time editors have the slightest idea how secret, illegal spying powers have been used, towards what ends they’ve been employed and with what motives? No, they have absolutely no idea. Not even members of Congressional Intelligence Committees know because the Bush administration has kept all of that concealed. So Time just makes up facts to defend the Bush administration with wholly baseless statements that one would expect to come pouring out of the mouths only of Dana Perino and Bill Kristol — the “motivating factor” for secret, illegal spying was nothing “other than law and order or national security.” This article literally has more factual errors — pure, retraction-level falsehoods — than it has paragraphs. It makes Joe Klein look like a knowledgable and conscientious surveillance expert. It’s one of the most falsehood-plagued articles I’ve seen in quite some time. The proposition that “polls consistently” find that Americans don’t mind incursions into their civil liberties is a rank falsehood.

Read the full article for a well-supported contention that Americans do care about the situation. What to do about it may well be the most important question in the upcoming election.

[Technosoul]

Give me liberty or give me the threat of terrorism. Sounds different then what John Patrick said.

If we are will willing to send troops overseas to protect our liberty, if they are willing to risk dieing so we can have liberty and freedom. Then it is stupid for us not to risk dieing for the sake of those same liberties and freedoms.

So why create a homeland security department to take away that risk by removing those liberties and freedoms to save us from an attack? If they do that then what the hell are we fightin' for?

[Chaossaber314]

While it's undeniable that our civil liberties have been greatly diminished in recent years, I think the problem is using alarmist Orwellian terms in the first place. Referring to Big Brother and 1984 borders on Godwin's law by taking an ultimate extreme example to describe something that clearly can't live up to the descriptor. In fact, in many cases it sounds like whining. Like the 16 year old calling their parents fascist because they won't let them go out on a Thursday night or use the car or something.

Particularly when, let's face it, our every day lives haven't changed that much. While many of these changes could potentially change our lives, at this point, they really haven't. The status quo remains virtually unchanged. It seems like more often than not we're arguing about the potentiality of problems from unconstitutional powers that have been passed by this government rather than cases of people who are actually being directly affected by such powers.

[Jack]

we're arguing about the potentiality of problems from unconstitutional powers that have been passed by this government

A good point, and I agree the heart of this debate.

[HelioPrime]

The point of the second article seems to be that giving away liberties has a potential to be abused and as such is wrong.

I'd have to disagree. Protecting society is paramount. Would I mind hidden camera's in all public malls or supermarkets? Nope, if they help combat crime then I'd be all for it. Now I suppose these camera's could be used to falsify recordings in order to detain government subversives, but that'd be the fault of the subversive. If you gain the ire of the government for protesting or trying to undermine security then your just as bad as any terrorist.

So many of these civil liberties arguments could be easily solved if people just realized the government isn't out to spy on everyone and steal you away in the night. The people who are watched or have their privacies violated are the ones who engage in actions or protest or trying to study to bring to light government activities. If you try to drag big brother into the spotlight don't be surprised if he wisks you away in the night. People could learn a little more trust and patriotism and stop trying to promote 200 year old nonsense while clinging to their cigarettes and shotguns.

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime The point of the second article seems to be that giving away liberties has a potential to be abused and as such is wrong. I'd have to disagree.

An entity that takes in and divvies out our liberties is already abusive, or at least generally flirting with abuse (it depends on what exactly is meant by "abuse").

Grandpa h.

[Clarence]

Now I suppose these camera's could be used to falsify recordings in order to detain government subversives, but that'd be the fault of the subversive. If you gain the ire of the government for protesting or trying to undermine security then your just as bad as any terrorist.

you are just as bad as any neocon

[grandpa]

Quote by: Clarence you are just as bad as any neocon

Regarding the words you responded to, I'd say his judgment is the reverse of what it should be. It's quite simply an argument for fascism to consider any imprisoned activist a terrorist. Of course, he goes beyond that, saying falsified information used to jail someone is legitimate. That's like fascism +1!

And yet people wonder why viepwoints such as mine exist!

Grandpa h.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa Regarding the words you responded to, I'd say his judgment is the reverse of what it should be. It's quite simply an argument for fascism to consider any imprisoned activist a terrorist. Of course, he goes beyond that, saying falsified information used to jail someone is legitimate. That's like fascism +1! And yet people wonder why viepwoints such as mine exist! Grandpa h.

If your taking actions against the government because you don't agree with its policy thats your problem and you pay for your actions. I've yet to see any evidence of the government willfully going after citizens unless they are of interest, as in possibly related to terrorism or groups critical of government policy.

Your the one who helped place that government into power after all. You reap the crop you've sown, isn't that how the saying goes?

So the government is spying on the ACLU? Big deal, perhaps the ACLU should back off and stop wasting time and money trying to preserve some concept of civil liberties that don't even exist, while at the same time trying to promote their own secular agenda.

[Compugasm]

Perhaps, the government shoud back off.

[HelioPrime]

It's your government, you helped put it there. If you didn't vote then you have no room to complain.

If your doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear.

[Fangrim]

For now, however, civil libertarians will have to continue to argue that the danger lies not in how the government's expanded powers are being used now, but how they might be used in the future. So far, that argument hasn't convinced the people.

We are fearful of terrorism and threats to security, so we give up our rights.
The OP's cites libertarians who say we should be fearful of government oppression, so we should defend those rights.


So, instead of buying into threats of terrorism in the future, we should instead be buying into fears of government oppression in the future?

I prefer "I don't know and I don't care." At least you aren't perpetually scared of something.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: HelioPrime If you didn't vote then you have no room to complain.

If I did vote, do I have a right to complain then?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Compugasm If I did vote, do I have a right to complain then?

Feel free to complain. Just don't be surprised if your investigated if you attempt to undermine authority or the power used to fight terrorism.

[Clarence]

define terrorism

[Compugasm]

Quote by: HelioPrime Feel free to complain. Just don't be surprised if your investigated if you attempt to undermine authority or the power used to fight terrorism.

This statement amplifies criminality. Fighting terrorism... what a joke. The result is that there are far more criminals than there would otherwise be. If you haven't read it, you would probably enjoy the book Catch-22 Helio.

[Jack]

So many of these civil liberties arguments could be easily solved if people just realized the government isn't out to spy on everyone and steal you away in the night.

What provides the basis for that conclusion?

[Chaossaber314]

What provides the basis for the conclusion that they are?

You already acknowledged that we're debating potentialities rather than actualities at this point. I submit that we have been doing this for a long time now, and while many of the actions being discussed are unconstitutional or simply wrong, they have never reached the the last level of the slippery slope where the worst outcome comes to pass.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Isherwood What provides the basis for that conclusion?

What basis do you have that points out an abuse of powers?

Is the government out to steal money from your bank account, or sell video's of you at home? Unless you can prove the government is willingly taking advantage of people for non security related issues then your just complaining over possibilities stemming from the world view where government is naturally corrupt and must be as limited as possible.

It is your topic over big brother. Do you know big brother is out to watch and get you? Or is it just a paranoid fear.