I'm thinking about voting for Bush- talk me out of it

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Fortunately SCOTUS has ruled on portions they found unconstitutional. Now the rest of it needs to be tested as well.

[Ramo]

SCOTUS defense against Shrub's assault on our civil liberties has been absolutley pitiful. The system is still guilty until proven innocent whenever the gov't wants (irrespective of citizenship).

[Straybow]

Diss, vote Bush just to shut up the whiners.

That cite I gave you indicates the number of 'unconstitutional' provisions in the PATRIOT Act, because the SCOTUS has declared the right to privacy to be a Constitutional right. You can see that it doesn't deter the current legislature and executive. Hopefully the judiciary puts it foot down.

Yes, well, the right to bear arms is more clearly enumerated in the Constitution than the right to privacy, yet SCOTUS lets all kinds of outright ownership bans in cities and general weapon restrictions (such as the capacity of magazines limited to 8 and the appearance or style of weapon) stand unchallenged.

Furthermore, any information gained by such methods cannot be used in criminal prosecution if it fails 4th Amendment or 5th Amendment muster at trial, which will be interpreted strictly regardless of PATRIOT. Such information has the same weigh as anonymous informers: it can only lead investigators to corroberated evidence.

---

Diss, vote Bush just to shut up the whiners. (same reason, different whining)

How about the fact that Bush invaded Iraq on false premises. A big part of the argumentation was that Iraq was connected to 9/11… [blah, blah, blah]

No, the administration never said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Only one rumor of a meeting between a hijacker and an Iraqi intelligence officer was ever mentioned, and it was clearly defined as a rumor. Bush and Powell used 9/11 only to point to vulnerability, and that vulnerability is the same to any motivated enemy.

Saddam was such a motivated enemy, openly supporting and funding Palestinian terrorism, openly celebrating the destruction of WTC, and openly calling for terrorists to act against the US by any means.

More importantly, Saddam's WMD programs and openly stated desires to continue and expand WMD capabilities were the primary reason for kicking his hairy arse out.

WMD programs are not the presence of stockpiles in and of themselves, but the materiel, facilities and personnel to produce them. That's why the African yellowcake connection was important to highlight Saddam's intentions and motivations, not whether attempts were successful.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

when we structure our entire system of government under the premise that the best way to oppose a law you don't like is by not getting caught?

That's a nice attempt at a strawman, but try again. No one has said the best way to oppose any law is to avoid getting caught. Though having privacy may allow a way to circumvent an unjust law which may not be officially changed any time soon, such as the drug laws. It's my private residence, and no one should be able to peek in there.

Certainly I didn't plan on setting up a strawman, it simply appeared to me that all of the value of privacy you had mentioned was in it's value for evading law enforcement, particularly for unjust laws. You went further to say that this value was so important that freedom doesn't exist without it. Put the two together and it seemed reasonable to assume that you saw evasion of law enforcment as the foundation of good government. As to your objection that no one should be able to peek in anybody's private residence I agree that this is a good concept worthy of upholding in most cases just as I think we would both agree that opposing taking property away from others (stealing) is a good concept. Yet IIRC you do not feel that income taxes are incompatible with freedom so you should be able to recognize that something like privacy can be a very good thing without necessarily being an absolutely sacred thing to be valued over our other rights.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If we allow people to escape the law by hiding from it then we are short circuiting the democratic process.

Good, sometimes the democratic process isn't the best thing. When the Courts decide an issue they may be subverting the democratic process, but that is a good.

The problem here is that privacy doesn't interfere with democracy in any sort of orderly predictible way. It circumvents for some while letting others alone. It discourages opposition to unjust laws by all those who have no prospect of getting caught. This will lead to more and more hypocrisy of the sort where people vote for a candidate whose overall platform they oppose (because there is no chance they will get caught) because they approve of the other bits of the platform while those who are likely to get caught for breaking such laws vote for the other guy who may lose because of the hypocrisy protection from the law via privacy can create. We could also interfere with injust laws by suggesting that every law be assigned a number and at the end of each year a random selection of laws would be repealed. This would block many unjust laws and would also circumvent the democratic process but would that make it a good thing? Perhaps it is not enough to circumvent unjust laws and short circuit the democratic process to be a good thing.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Arguments for a right to privacy are all based on extentions of the right to liberty, so liberty must come first, and take primacy over any right to privacy.

Freedom is, at its base, the right to be left alone. Free speech is about being able to say what you want and be left alone even though you say it. Freedom to work is about working wherever you want and being left alone no matter what that job is.

Privacy is a necessary extention.

If privacy is a necessary extension how does my freedom change if that extension is removed?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ramo
SCOTUS defense against Shrub's assault on our civil liberties has been absolutley pitiful. The system is still guilty until proven innocent whenever the gov't wants (irrespective of citizenship).

That isn't the system actually, rather it is the way the executive is behaving in at least the padilla case and I fear possibly others. Repealing the PATRIOT act would make absolutely no difference in hte padilla case or any other case involving citizens.

[Ramo]

That isn't the system actually

Yes it is. The Supreme Court has spoken in the Hamdi case.

Repealing the PATRIOT act would make absolutely no difference in hte padilla case or any other case involving citizens.

I never said it would. But it would make a difference for noncitizens.

[Ramo]

And the reason why privacy is a fundamental freedom is that information is the ultimate power. If the state can get any information it wants it can blackmail anyone, it can easily persecute those with dissenting viewpoints, and so on and so forth.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ramo
And the reason why privacy is a fundamental freedom is that information is the ultimate power. If the state can get any information it wants it can blackmail anyone, it can easily persecute those with dissenting viewpoints, and so on and so forth.

I only need to think a second or two to refute this. How would the government blackmail me if it knew everything about me? Why would I not continue to dissent? If the government wanted to blackmail me it would have plenty of tools to use but knowledge about my life wouldn't be one of them. The information they automatically posess about all of us is enough to destroy any of our lives as it stands even with total sacrosanct protections on privacy. Just look how hard it is to undue the damage of indeity theft and think how much of the information required for indentity theft the government already automatically posesses.

As to information being the ultimate power, well I strongly doubt that if I knew every last particle of information about our government that I would have any more power over it than I do now.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

heres all i gotta add before the server crashes from too much text

if the govt is big enough to give you everything, its big enough to take everything away.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
heres all i gotta add before the server crashes from too much text

if the govt is big enough to give you everything, its big enough to take everything away.

I agree. A governement that is unfettered by a guarentee of privacy should be kept small enough that it has to be quite selective on whose privacy it violates. Government with unlimited resources worries me more than government with unlimited knowledge. Especially if the unlimited resources stem from unlimited ability to take resources from others.

[Ben Kenobi]

Freedom is, at its base, the right to be left alone.

Liberty is a positive value, and not a negative value. Privacy is truly, the right to be left alone, but is not a positive value.

Liberty is not just the right to be left alone, but is much more than that, the right to be free, the right to do something, the right to speak, the right to practice religion, the right to travel freely, the right to work the job that you want, and to take another job.

This is liberty, yet none of these have anything to do with privacy. What use is it to practice religion, if one can only do so in private? Religion requires public participation in order to be truly free.

The same with speech. What value is freedom of speech, if one can only speak freely in private? Freedom truly means the right to speak freely in public.

[Ramo]

I only need to think a second or two to refute this.

Try harder, dear.

How would the government blackmail me if it knew everything about me?

If you have sensitive information that you may not want everyone to know. I don't know you, so I can't answer that.

Why would I not continue to dissent?

As I said, the gov't could persecute you for your opinions.

If the government wanted to blackmail me it would have plenty of tools to use but knowledge about my life wouldn't be one of them.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of blackmail?

The information they automatically posess about all of us is enough to destroy any of our lives as it stands even with total sacrosanct protections on privacy.

And there are specific checks regarding gov't abuse of them.

As to information being the ultimate power, well I strongly doubt that if I knew every last particle of information about our government that I would have any more power over it than I do now.

Eh? Are you kidding? You could get all the money you wanted, you could get whatever you want out of politicians (look at the McGreevey scandal).

[Ben Kenobi]

It is very possible to be private, and not to be free, to be caged in a dungeon, in solitary confinement, without cameras.

You are not free, yet you have all the privacy that you want.

You would also starve and die in such a situation, because to be truly private, would require there to be no guards to monitor your presence, and to give you food and water in order to sustain your life.

In short, this demonstrates that total privacy is not desireable, nor can it be beneficial in a society. Society, by necessity abrogates some of our privacy to encourage a greater benefit.

In another case, just because I have a private life, does not mean that such life is the most beneficial. Man, as a social animal, often benefits more by giving up his privacy to allow others into his life.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ramo

I only need to think a second or two to refute this.

Try harder, dear.

How would the government blackmail me if it knew everything about me?

If you have sensitive information that you may not want everyone to know. I don't know you, so I can't answer that.

Why would I not continue to dissent?

As I said, the gov't could persecute you for your opinions.

If the government wanted to blackmail me it would have plenty of tools to use but knowledge about my life wouldn't be one of them.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of blackmail?

The information they automatically posess about all of us is enough to destroy any of our lives as it stands even with total sacrosanct protections on privacy.

And there are specific checks regarding gov't abuse of them.

If the government can illegally persercute me for my opinions then the government could also illegally violate my privacy. So I fail to see how making invasions of privacy legal is going to make persecution more likely. legality only comes into play so far as the government is willing to observe it. Once you assume the government will act illegally regardless then arguing for laws protecting privacy becomes pointless. By invading my privacy alone the government cannot legally persecute or blackmail me.

Originally posted by Ramo

I only need to think a second or two to refute this.

As to information being the ultimate power, well I strongly doubt that if I knew every last particle of information about our government that I would have any more power over it than I do now.

Eh? Are you kidding? You could get all the money you wanted, you could get whatever you want out of politicians (look at the McGreevey scandal).

But that's illegal if the government is going to act illegally it matters not what protections of privacy (or of anything else) have been set up.

[Ramo]

If the government can illegally persercute me for my opinions then the government could also illegally violate my privacy. So I fail to see how making invasions of privacy legal is going to make persecution more likely. legality only comes into play so far as the government is willing to observe it. Once you assume the government will act illegally regardless then arguing for laws protecting privacy becomes pointless. By invading my privacy alone the government cannot legally persecute or blackmail me

Look at COINTELPRO. If there are cops planted inside dissenting groups, they can more easily neutralize them. Information gives the gov't extraordinary power.

Now, if there's legal recourse to such information gathering, they can be stopped before the actual suppression occurs. The point is to minimize state abuse, and that starts with limiting the state's information gathering capability.

But that's illegal if the government is going to act illegally it matters not what protections of privacy (or of anything else) have been set up.

That was specifically addressing the power of information.