NEWS: Secret Service: What Bill of Rights?

POLITICS: Secret Service: What Bill of Rights?

Since the passage of the rather Orwellian USA Patriot Act and other dubious pieces of legislation an almost constant battle between progressives and conservatives has erupted, with progressives claming massive infringements on their civil liberties while conservatives suggesting these are simply exaggerations and more security is necessary for our safety. The Washington Post, however, now has firsthas evidence of some of the new realities of living in modern America and what it means for our rights as a whole. The prognosis is not good.

Protesters know that when they decide on a route of civil disobedience that they are risking arrest. However, the assumption is usually that a political prisoner will be treated with dignity and according to the laws and principles of the United States, a country a founded on protest and free speech. If the secret service has their way though, those rights will disappear.

Let's see, we've got freedom fo the press, freedom of speech, freedom to peacably assemble, all being violated simultaneously! That's very impressive, I wonder if the secret service will keep going and violate the fourth, fifth and eighth amendments as well by illegally searching the protester's houses, detaining them without filing charges or continuing to humiliate them by pulling them by the hair, or other actions prohibited by the eighth amendment? Why not throw a little racial profiling in there and incarcerate any middle eastern looking protesters longer, violating the fourteenth amendment? Once an organization has decided that it's going to shit on the constitution, the possibilities are endless.

Now are people starting to see why progressives are worried?

The scariest part about our rights disappearing is that by the time you actually notice it, it's too late.

Maybe they can deny suffrage to anyone who openly opposes Bush as well.

Dude, you're like four years late on that one.

this makes me

Nice!

The two strategies: 1) use small, incremental changes. C'mon it's no big deal, that change in the rules only affects a few hundred people, and it's not like it makes much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
2) intimidate and belittle those who question. You don't like the new rule? You're not getting back in. Combined with #1, what are you going to do, go to court to declare the actions of a couple of secret service personnel unconstitutional? If you do that, you'll have a hard time getting clearance to any of the president's appearances.

Yes, the majority of the blame rests on the Bush Administration, but the media doesn't do anyone any favors by agreeing to that kind of bullshit.

i'm torn on this. its easy to yell "see? see?" and start screaming about the patriot act, but since this is an actually news story now, there's always the chance that the SS(god it scares me typing that) will deal with internally. usually under this administartion when you see anything like this there's an offical codemnation and then rumors start flying that the marching order came straight from the top(anyone remember a few prisoners?). so i'll have to watch where this goes, but right now i think its a little too early to start saying "oh so that's the way it is from now on" the SS has always been rough with people, its part of having that job, they can shove people a little harder and ask a few less questions because its against the law to even joke about killing the president, so they could legally hold these people until they determine the veracity of any possible threats they may or may not have made.

I always find it fascinating when someone say from outside the US point out some sort of onerous thing like searches as the airport as a huge civil right violation, while the US Patriot Act flew in overnight and basically removes all the rights that were specifically put in there, to PROTECT INNOCENT PEOPLE like you and I from being unfairly accused, and basically losing all rights... from being spied upon... we put these things in the constitution for a reason, you know that whole warrent clause, and search and seizure, god forbid you check out "Dude? Where's my Country? You'll hear jackboots kicking down the door at 3:00am, as black clad figures storm your home, and say words like "sir, lay down and do not move or we will shoot."

Yes, I think you make a good point. Exposure of this sort of thing (apparently bullying of reporters hasn't been 100% successful) will raise awareness of it and allow for the possibility of change. But that change has to happen, and it can take time because it will almost certainly be the result of lawsuits with multiple appeals, etc. This could take a while to sort out.

I thought the Warrant clause was intended to discourage playing "Cherry Pie" in public places.

Sorry, I just had to.

I would totally support a constitutional amendment banning Warrant.



Incidentally, the frst concert I ever went to (in sixth grade) was Warrant on their "Cherry Pie" tour opening for Poison. Let me tell you - i've never seen lip synching so good.

"Rights" are moot under this administration, and it's setting a remarkably dangerous precedent for future administrations. Dissent is no longer tolerated in the name of very dubious "security." The unfortunate thing is, this kind of blatant violation of our most basic rights as Americans should be plastered across the front page of every newspaper in the country, but intimidation tactics have made even traditionally progressive media outlets hesitant to openly denounce such illegal, unconstitutional activity. Things are only going to get worse, folks, be prepared and don't take it sitting down.

Thank you for sharing that memory with us. I'm sure that must have been painful.

How dare you ?

And on your birthday too! I said I was sorry.

The other side of this to me has always been the odd assumption that people think they have privacy. I admired the CEO of Sun Microsystems when he pointed out "You have no privacy, get over it".

People will willingly give away all their private rights with gmail accounts, IE browsers, Price Club cards, and a beavy of other things but they whig over seatbelt laws and profiling. But when your insurance company buys your shopping record and raises your rate because they determined that you smoke and eat too much junk food, you'll just have to take it. After all, you signed a waiver allowing that right to be infringed.

In all the discussion of the Patriot Act, I never see people mention the fact that it is temporary, and designed to be so. That it wasn't an "administration" thing. It was a governemnt thing. No one was forced to sign it, and the excuses that people use to absolve their "non-administration" politicians for signing it never hold water.

If it isn't needed the system will right itself and it won't pass again.

You display remarkable naivete.

It's true - the Patriot act passed with nary a whisper of dissent. The issue that I and many other people have with the Patriot act was that the legislation is substantial and our representatives weren't given enough time to have their staffs study it and determine the ramifications of passing it before a vote was forced. It was passed on October 24, 2001. This is 43 days after 9/11 - and if you remember many of those days weren't spent drafting and discussing legislation, the government was in a virtual shutdown, and subsequent anthrax attacks were further hampering the ability of the house and the senate to function at anything resembling efficiency. Have you looked at the act? It's huge and very complex, and therefore should have merited significant discussion and amending to make sure that it didn't infringe on anyone's rights.

The other big issue I have is with naming it the "Patriot" act. In my opinion this was purely a political move so that anyone who voted against it would be automatically labeled "unpatriotic" when it came time for their reelection. Another thinly veiled attempt to stifle debate on an important and influential piece of legislation.

You're right (thankfully) about sunset clause on it though. There are undoubtedly some things in there that are worth keeping, but they should be singled out and passed individually, not bundled together with the more dubious components of it.

And regardless of what the CEO of Sun Microsystems has to say the Supreme Court has interpreted a constitutional right to privacy on several occasions. Opting into a corporate program that breaches your privacy is voluntary, the constitutional right is freedom from government intrusion, they're two very separate things.

The Secret Service has a long tradition of violating civil rights with impunity. Have a look at some of the cases in Operation Sun Devil. To see one case where they were so stupid they actually got busted, check out Steve Jackson vs. the Secret Service.

bush = terrorist

very well put.

USA PATRIOT = Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism


i really like the "Uniting and Strengthening" part....