July 31, 2004
What is the price? What is the risk?
Would you support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
Is your love of America grounded in the love of the principles embodied by the Constitution?
Would you risk your safety in defense of the Bill of Rights?
How many lives is defending the Constitution worth?
How great a risk is too great? 1 in 300 million? 1 in 30 million? 1 in 3 million?
President Bush believes that sending our soldiers to fight and die in Iraq is defending the U.S. and worth the risk. 1000 dead (if you include contractors). That's about 1 in 300,000. But that is against a foreign threat. What about a domestic threat?
What is a domestic threat against the Constitution? When our government asks us to give up just a few of our rights in order to reduce our risk, is it asking too much? In the past, the Republicans wouldn't have agreed. They were the party of assumed risk and responsibility. Injured by a product? Hey, that's life. Scalded by a superheated cup of coffee? Don't go looking to trial lawyers for compensation or justice.
Scared by the risk of Terrorism? Oh! "Don't worry!" says papa Bush, Ashcroft, Ridge, Cheney and Rummy. Just let us increase the power of the federal government and it will protect you. Because you know, those rascals are planning something. Something big. We don't know where, we don't know when, we don't know how. But it could kill you.
In just the past 5 years, 3000 people have been killed by Terrorists on American soil. That averages out to 600 deaths a year. Or an incredible risk to you of 1 in 500,000. And George W. Bush knows that that risk is to high for you. You are not willing to support and defend the Constitution if the risk is that high... Are you? Are you willing to trade the financial health of the Country along with the Bill of Rights in order to reduce that risk below 1 in 500,000?
Is it really possible for the government to lower that risk any more?
Living in the Washington D.C. area, I may have a slightly different perspective on what was the most terrorizing terrorist incident of the past three years. If you worked in the Pentagon, 9/11 definitely ranks at the top. If you worked in the post office, it would be the Anthrax letters. But for the majority of the metro area, it was the sniper.
Sure 9/11 was scary. But it was over in a day, and most of us just watched it on T.V. The sniper, however, stayed with us, every day for weeks. He changed our behavior. We didn't go to Home Depot. We stayed away from gas stations near highways. Our kids’ outdoor activities were canceled. We were terrorized.
The government couldn't protect us. It took weeks of hard detective work from the police and FBI before they were apprehended.
The scariest of all, was how simple it was. Two men, one rifle, one car. I'm still amazed we haven't had a copy cat.
Terrifying? Yes. Risky to go outside for a walk? No. During that same time more people died in the area from traffic accidents than the sniper.
Could Al Quada use that same tactic? Sure. All they have to do is get a shooter, a rifle and a car. The fact that they haven't should tell us something about their capability to operate in this country. They blew up all their local assets on 9/11.
Through all the fear, it is easy to lose track of how simple 9/11 was: five men per plane with box cutters. The defense would have been so easy. If the FAA had just ordered secure cockpit doors, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. What is the risk of the same thing happening now? Can you imagine a pilot opening the cockpit door before landing, regardless of how many passengers are being killed? Would the passengers sit still for it? No, the risk of that tactic being used successfully again is quite small. Even without all the extra screening, security, and confiscation of pocket knives and toe nail clippers.
The risks are small, but the cost of liberty is high. Are you willing to trade?
The administration likes to point out the nuclear, chemical or biological boogiemen. But those capabilities don’t just appear out of thin air. They take knowledge, industry and practice. If we use our resources wisely, and grow allies and goodwill worldwide, that boogieman won’t take us by surprise.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Because in succumbing to that fear, we give up the very thing we are trying to defend.
Posted by Al Maline at July 31, 2004 02:40 PMWould that be the fear of Bush or the fear of terrorists?
So what you’re saying is that the threat of terrorism is exagerated but the threat posed by Republicans is real.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at July 31, 2004 11:06 PMNo, Eric. Terror baiters and political oppurtunists. Not all Republicans fall into that category.
Are you saying we must destroy the bill of rights to be safe from terrorists and those treasonist Democrats, Eric?
Posted by: Greg at July 31, 2004 11:37 PMAl: “No, the risk of that tactic being used successfully again is quite small. Even without all the extra screening, security, and confiscation of pocket knives and toe nail clippers.
The risks are small, but the cost of liberty is high. Are you willing to trade?”
Al, that is the most impassioned defense of our right to carry nail clippers, etc., onto airplanes that I have ever heard. The cost of liberty is indeed high (I paid seventy-five bucks for my manicure kit).
In fairness, I suppose you’re using nail clippers as a metaphor for some larger point about the threat to our liberties, but I’d like to use the same metaphor now because I find it quite telling.
My point: the Bill of Rights is alive and well. Civil libertarians (which all of us should be) are ill served by the chicken-little alarmism of those who are running around accusing Bush of curtailin our rights when such curtailments, to the extent that they are taking place, are simply the necessary functions of law enforcement during a time of war. But the left is not even willing to give up their nail-clippers—after all, the next logical step is concentration camps.
Where does this kind of nit-picking stop, if you refuse to allow any curtailments? Isn’t a severe insult to the Bill of Rights if we even lock cockpit doors on airplanes, if we shouldn’t even have to surrender our pocket knives, as you say we shouldn’t?
If I’m not allowed to go up into the cockpit during my flight and hand out Sierra Club fliers to the flight crew, isn’t my freedom of both movement and speech being abridged? I’m not being flippant—seriously, what is your standard? Do you have one?
This may sound like a joke, but it’s apparently a joke the left loves to tell and believes in fervently with all their alarmist rhetoric about federal agents in libraries (which isn’t happening) and searches without warrants (which also won’t and can’t happen, even under the Patriot Act). Complaints about roving wire taps are no different from complaints about nail clippers—both show a lack of seriousness about security and a greater desire to attack the president for trying to protect us than to recognize that the world of September 10th is gone forever.
Posted by: Martin at August 1, 2004 12:31 AMMartin, the point I’m trying to make is two fold in that I believe that any unnecessary excessive security expenditures combined with even mild incursions into our freedoms is not worth the apparent risk. Two weeks ago I took my kids to see the Statue of Liberty. We had to pass through airport level security. There were at least 20 guards screening ferry passengers using x-ray equipment. It was required that we take our belts off.
Were they protecting us? There were no guard boats protecting the ferry from a Cole type attack from an explosive laden dingy. Were they protecting the statue? There was no great security on the island keeping that same dingy from landing. What was the point? And at what cost to our dignity and freedom. Yes the freedom to keep my belt on! And the freedom to use those tax payer dollars to keep more police on the street, improve ambulance services, pay for health care for children.
These things don’t keep us safe, they just add to the atmosphere of fear.
Al, I agree that not all security measures make sense and that some are such plain silly. Perhaps I even agree that the Democrat policy makers in charge of protecting New York’s tourist attractions were ridiculous for making you remove your belt—on the other hand, was it really so bad? Why did they do it—I have no idea. Some intelligence of a “belt bomb?” Perhaps they just didn’t think your belt went with your shoes—after all, it’s New York we’re talking about. This is hardly proof that we’re living a police state, however. At worst, it means that the focus on security needs to be applied more intensely elswhere.
S I don’t agree that having NO security measures makes sense either. I’m a Bush-supporter who nonetheless finds the color-coded security alerts ridiculous. Airport security is still a joke, and our other transportation systems are totally unprotected.
But as for fear—fear can be a healthy and normal response. We SHOULD be fearful to the degree that it keeps us alert. On September 10 we felt too little fear, so let’s not make that mistake again.
Posted by: Martin at August 1, 2004 01:47 AMI hope that the author will be as vocal about defending the constitution when it comes to such concepts as equality under the law (and how the progressive tax is a clear violation), property rights, and gun ownership, as well as the rights of states and the role of government.
That being said, I agree with a lot of what is being said here. However, I don’t think that being genuinely concerned about our low level of security counts as Terrorism Bating. I’d like to see the focus on securing our borders, ‘specialy those gigantic gaping holes we call the Canadian and Mexican borders. I think that if we put the focus there we would have less of a need to impose questionable (and some reasonable) resctrictions at home.
Posted by: Damon at August 1, 2004 02:03 AMAre you saying we must destroy the bill of rights to be safe from terrorists and those treasonist Democrats, Eric?
Greg, I’m certainly not saying that. It is being said that that is the Republican position. Which I would dispute.
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law violates the constitution far more than the Patriot Act does. I don’t see any reference to exactly what constitutional principles are being shredded by the war in Iraq.
Maybe Al can elaborate on exactly how Republicans are tearing up the constitution.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at August 1, 2004 02:18 AMGood points, Damon. For more than a decade, we’ve had speech codes on college campuses, “hate-crime” legislation which seeks to pass judgement on a person’s internal beliefs in addition to or even instead of their already illegal actions (as awful as those beliefs might be), and continuous and relentless efforts to attack the second amendment.
Add to that judicial activism that seeks to replace the will of voters and elected legislatures. Add to that a severe erosion of the many authorites explicitly delegated to the states by the Constitution.
All of this is not only countenanced but actually celebrated by the left. They don’t give a hoot about the Constitution. But threaten to keep tabs on suspected terrorists with common-sense measures like court-ordered roving wire taps and the so far unused provision to see if they’ve been reading about how to build bombs at the local library (a measure which would require a warrant from a judge), and they start screaming bloody murder.
So what you’re saying is that the threat of terrorism is exagerated but the threat posed by Republicans is real.
I think he’s making the point that the Republican threat is more “imminent”. :)
Great article Al, I totally agree.
There’s no question that our law enforcement and immigration departments need to be modernized and refocused to better protect us from terrorists slipping into the country. Why hasn’t Bush made that a priority?
There’s no doubt that our harbors, and chemical and nuclear facilities need to be better protected. Why hasn’t Bush focused on that?
There’s no doubt that our borders need to be better monitored. Why hasn’t Bush focused on that?
A focus on better communication between intelligence, law enforcement, and immigration would be far more effective at strengthening the security of this country than checking shoes at the airport.
The recent 9/11 videos showing the terrorists going through airport security checks makes it clear that the only real deterrence is to stop them from boarding the planes.
Martin - since the Statue of Liberty is a national park run by the National Park Service security is under the control of the Department of the Interior, not NYC. Although I was wrong to imply that there were no extra security measures protecting the island. It seems that 24 hour patrols and thermal imaging are in place.
Eric - purhaps you missed the recent Supreme Court ruling slapping down the administration practice of taking American Citizens off of American streets, declaring them “Enemy Combatants” and holding them indefinately without representation or access to the courts. If this doesn’t show the administrations use of the fear of terrorism to grind away at the Bill of Rights, then I don’t know how to convince you. You may want to try thinking about it this way: If Bill Clinton had done this, would you feel the same way?
Posted by: Al Maline at August 1, 2004 10:16 AMGood Job, Al.
I don’t believe the Bill of Rights has been shredded yet, but there are those who are using fear to erode it. The Supreme Court finally showed some balls and stood up against Bush.
As far as removing belts, well that’s a small inconvenience, and I do agree some of the security measures aren’t very effective.
In sixth grade, I suggested hardening cockpits as a solution to the Cuban hijackings taking place back then. Security isn’t that difficult, it just erodes profits. Requiring Airlines to hire sky marshalls and screening baggage would be the most effective way of preventing a repeat of 9-11. Maybe hiring 250 lb martial arts stewards would help.
Border Control would be vey expensive. Large employers would lose there resource of cheap labor. The Mexican and Canadian Borders are very long. The coasts are also easiy used by smugglers. I don’t see how that is going to happen unless you build walls and hire a huge number of guards to patrol it or wire it with intrusion detectors.
Posted by: Greg at August 1, 2004 12:45 PMI always remember when I read about the reason the FAA doesn’t require car seats for infants on planes. It seems like logical common sense that infants would be safer with car seats, so why not require them as in cars? It turns out that requiring car seats would require parents to buy tickets for infants instead of holding them on their lap. This greatly increases the cost of flying for a family, to the point that most would choose to drive instead of fly. Well guess what. Flying even without a car seat is quite a bit less risky than driving with a car seat. So requiring them on planes would cost lives, not save them.
Posted by: Al Maline at August 1, 2004 01:10 PMSorry, to throw cold water on the central theme of this topic, but, should not Al Maline, the author of this article said, The Cost of Losing Liberty is High? The cost of liberty is its exercise - a relatively cheap cost. The cost of losing liberty is second only to the loss of life, and even then, not always as Patrick Henry said, “Give me Liberty, or give me death”
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2004 02:58 PMGreat article Al Maline!
I was just discussing the number of amendments to the constitution the Patriot Act breaks in the red column. I have a feeling that “We the People” don’t realize just how many of our rights have already been violated. I think if more people understood just how extreme the Patriot Act is, and that there is a real chance that by keeping Ashcroft in the Justice Dept. our freedoms might be further abridged with Patriot Act II, they would be much more concerned over the direction this country taken.
Personally, I have a huge problem with the fact that the DOJ and law enforcement can now do things like secretly collect highly personal information, do searches and seizures without warrants, and detain people indefinitely in undisclosed locations without access to a lawyer - all _in privacy_ and perhaps for reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. Recently I’ve heard many people discussing how protesters are now being designated as “enemy combatants” - I don’t know about you, but to me that sounds like we might already be living in a dictatorship.
Readers can find out all about this subject on the ACLU website - they give a good overview and also break it down by subject, as well. I encourage all Americans in every column of this website to get a lot more informed and a whole lot more vocal in opposing the Patriot Act.
As one of the most strenuous defenders of American freedom, Benjamin Franklin once said: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
He also said: “So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.”
Adrienne, you only fuel the chasm when you refer to the entire Patriot Act as a bad piece of legislation. The fact is, much of the Patriot Act is both necessary and positive for the benefit of all citizens at this time. It is only those provisions which abridge the Bill of Rights, which need to be changed.
To dis the entire Patriot Act simply gives fuel to the right to come back and say lefties want us to give the terrorists a knife and then bare our throats.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2004 03:18 PMDavid,
The Patriot Act _is_ a bad piece of legislation because it contains provisions which violate the Bill of Rights, because it disregards our system of checks and balances and because it was rushed to a vote without anyone seeming to read it. I was not, however suggesting that we do not need legislation that will protect us in these days of terrorism. For this reason, I believe the Patriot Act should be repealed and new legislation - which both parties strenuously argue and discuss - take its place. If the 9/11 commision can do what they have done in such an admirable, thorough and bi-partisan fashion, surely our government can do the same when it comes to protecting our security.
It took the founders of this nation a great deal of arguing and discussing when they wrote our Constitution - and it is the oldest written constitution in continuous opperation in the world because of its ingenious system of checks and balances. Allowing fear (and possibly, the ulterior motives of the current administration) to let us scrap such an excellent document - one that has stood us in good stead since 1787, and through all the wars we have ever fought, is very unwise, in my opinion.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 1, 2004 04:55 PMAdrienne, we seem to be in perfect agreement, except scrapping the Patriot Act as opposed to modifying it. Modifying it can be done bi-partisanly since some Republicans favor the changes I mentioned. Scrapping it as bad legislation would be a partisan slap in the face which would get us nowhere but to keeping the Patriot Act intact as it is. Let us not forget who controls the executive and branches of Congress. Slapping them in the face is not going to get the affronts to our Bill of Rights modified.
It helps to think politically, not partisanly on such issues.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2004 05:56 PMDavid, you wrote:
“Slapping them in the face is not going to get the affronts to our Bill of Rights modified.”
Since the provisions in the Patriot Act violate four, possibly five of those rights, the Act itself was/is a collective slap in the face to all Americans. By having a whole new piece of legislation passed, I think it would send a stronger message that fooling around with our constitutional rights must, and never will be, tolerated in this country.
David:
“It helps to think politically, not partisanly on such issues.”
I know what you’re saying, but I’ve had a major problem with John Ashcroft ever since I heard that prayer and bible study were a regular part of his DOJ meetings - this was well before 9/11 and the outrages that are contained within the Patriot Act. I’m a firm believer in the separation of Church and State and hearing he did that made my blood run cold.
I understand, Adrienne. Being Buddhist for all of my adult life, I have grave concerns over eliminating separation of church and state as well.
It may be coincidence, but, I have seen original ideas posted here which become debated in D.C. as few as days and as many as months later. Who knows, we may be operating an open forum think tank right here at WB which some political aids monitor for useful morsels.
Your partisan candor and passion is however a fine example to the 46% of eligible voters who will bury their heads in the sand this November 2 or feel completely turned off by the partisan bickering and back and forth which requires some independent thinking on their part to discern a truth and voting decision. If only they would take the time to find a party and support it as passionately as yourself, this country might be able to revitalize its democracy.
I totally agree that the American Congress should fully and openly debate the costs and benefits of the Patriot Act before the public. That did not happen, and regrettably, won’t happen under a one party dominated government which promoted the bill in the first place.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2004 07:54 PMAddrienne and David, it sounds like what you’re really objecting to is the Constitutionally guaranteed right for Americans to practice their religion (as well as their right to practice free speech). If Ashcroft or anyone else prays or studies the bible, that’s their protected right, even if they do so while carrying out their official functions. It’s you—not them—who want to abridge the Constitution. Even an athiest like myself is capable of making this distinction.
I’ve seen no suggestion that Ashcroft or anyone else in the administration has tried to “establish an official state religion,” which is all the Constitution has to say on the matter. I repeat—that’s all that’s forbidden. If you try to forbid more, you’re stripping away rights in a way far more severe that what you accuse the Patriot Act of doing.
Congress opens and closes with prayers, and when the next President (Bush, hopefully) gives his oath, he will place his hand on a Bible. When a witness swears in at a legal proceeding, he does the same (though he is not compelled to do so).
Public displays of religion, even as part of official functions, are PROTECTED until they broach the threshold of establishing a compulsory state religion. This shouldn’t be so hard to understand.
So stop trying to scrap and rewrite the Constitution to reflect your own beliefs.
Posted by: Martin at August 2, 2004 12:23 AMMartin, the whole separation of church & state was mentioned as an aside. The conversation is about the USA PATRIOT Act.
My favorite unconstitutional power granted by the act: sneek & peek. An FBI agent, on his own authority and without a warrant, can break into your home while you’re away, search & seize whatever he wants (like that pizza from last night in the fridge), and he never has to notify you that it happened. Sweet! For him, anyway. Bad for us.
So stop trying to scrap and rewrite the Constitution to reflect your own beliefs.
Hey… Wait a minute. Nice misdirection there, Martin. That’s exactly what Bush is trying to do!
If it sounds that way to you Martin, how about quoting my words that give you those sounds? Otherwise, stop pretending like you understand what I am saying as you twist and distort it in your own mind.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 2, 2004 09:18 AM“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain security will lose both and deserve neither.” - Benjamin FranklinPosted by: JJ at August 2, 2004 10:43 AM
Martin wrote:
“Addrienne and David, it sounds like what you’re really objecting to is the Constitutionally guaranteed right for Americans to practice their religion (as well as their right to practice free speech).”
That is not at all what I am objecting to. What I object to most is the provisions in the Patriot Act which have rendered at least four amendments in the Bill of Rights obsolete.
Martin:
“If Ashcroft or anyone else prays or studies the bible, that’s their protected right, even if they do so while carrying out their official functions.”
If they do so privately, I agree completely. But when public officals begin to make bible study an obligatory part of their government meetings, I admit it worries me. The founders of this nation, the ones who wrote our Constitution which has served us so well all these years, demanded a separation of church and state and did so for good reason.
Thomas Jefferson said: “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”
What I am getting at here is that I believe a man of reason will look for wisdom and inspiration from many sources so that he will do his job wisely and correctly - and the bible is just one of many places where that wisdom may be found. I would feel more comfortable if I had heard that John Ashcroft sometimes opened his
meetings by reading what our Enlightenment era founders had to say - because they were men who culled the wisdom of many sources - and used that knowledge to write our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The fact that John Ashcroft shredded those rights with the Patriot Act tells me he doesn’t respect the argument and debate that went into the writing of those documents and I have a problem with that - as I believe all Americans should.
Martin:
“It’s you—not them—who want to abridge the Constitution. Even an athiest like myself is capable of making this distinction.”
Huh? I thought I made it pretty clear in my other posts that I am totally against _any abridging_ of the Constitution.
Martin:
“I’ve seen no suggestion that Ashcroft or anyone else in the administration has tried to “establish an official state religion,” which is all the Constitution has to say on the matter. I repeat—that’s all that’s forbidden. If you try to forbid more, you’re stripping away rights in a way far more severe that what you accuse the Patriot Act of doing.”
Sorry, but this is Bulls**t. What does it say about someone that they demand that every person around the table partake of bible study before the offical business of the country may be performed? I suggest John Ashcroft get up an hour early to do his bible study, that way when he gets to the DOJ he can get right to work, or, like I just suggested, if he is looking to inspire himself and the people around him, let him try a few other sources, rather than ramming his religion down the throat of his subordinates.
Martin:
“Congress opens and closes with prayers, and when the next President (Bush, hopefully) gives his oath, he will place his hand on a Bible.”
Congress opens and closes with the prayers of _many different religions_; a fact implying that all religions are respected and protected in this country by the first amendment.
Martin:
“When a witness swears in at a legal proceeding, he does the same (though he is not compelled to do so).”
Q. Why do you suppose he is not _compelled_ to do so?
A. First Amendment
But the Patriot Act has called into question whether we still have all our first amendment rights.
Martin:
“Public displays of religion, even as part of official functions, are PROTECTED until they broach the threshold of establishing a compulsory state religion.”
I believe that by making bible study a mandatory part of DOJ meetings, John Ashcroft is closely broaching this threshold. This would be especially true if his subordinates didn’t happen to share his religion or his desire to study the bible before getting down to work.
Martin:
“This shouldn’t be so hard to understand.”
What is hard for me to understand is why John Ashcroft felt he could wad up the Bill of Rights like so much toilet paper.
Martin:
“So stop trying to scrap and rewrite the Constitution to reflect your own beliefs.”
I would never wish to do so, because I can’t imagine anything more un-American.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 2, 2004 10:54 AMAdrienne and David, you need to ask yourself why you believe so many things that are not true. I’m not talking about interpretations of facts now, but actual facts that seem to be beamed down from planets other than this one.
For example, the accusation that Ashcroft holds compulsary bible studies or makes prayer an official part of DOJ meetings is a load of baloney which reflects poorly anyone repeating it. He has some meetings before work which people are welcome to attend or not. But this is the kind of thing his political opponents will just pick up on and start lying about unmercifully.
I agree that Ashcroft should study Englightment era figures, but your assumption that he has not is the condescending attitude of those who think their own way of thinking is the only way—thatif people were just a bit more educated they’d think exactly as you do. Believe it or not, some religious people can actually read and tie their own shoes.
Also, all of this hysteria about the Patriot Act overturning the Bill of Rights shows very little familiarity with either the Patriot Act OR the Bill of Rights. Amercian Pundit apparently thinks it allows federal agents to search and sieze without warrants (which it total bull).
There are enough real issues we could argue about without having to wade through all these imaginary ones about the Patriot Act and John Aschrcroft’s prayer meetings.
If anyone is interested in facts, here is where they may be found:
USA Patriot Act:
www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207
USA Patriot Act : Further Analysis
www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12224&c=207
Attorney General John Ashcroft’s Assault on Civil Liberties
www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11137&c=206
Martin, I am amazed at your philanthropy. As an atheist, you choose to pay taxes to support public servants devoting a part of their salaried work day to their own personal religious pursuits. That is very magnanimous. Would you still so gladly fund through taxes Arabs taking time out on your tax dime 3 or 4 times a day to perform their religiously obligatory rituals? Just curious.
Do you support tax dollars building places of worship in government buildings so religious folks have appropriate places to pray on your tax dollars? A mini mosque, synagogue, protestant and catholic church in the Pentagon?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 2, 2004 04:34 PMWell, I pay taxes for public servants who spend their time doing things much worse. As long as they’re praying, I guess they’re not dreaming up new ways to screw me over.
As far as Ashcroft goes, his little meetings are reportedly at 8 in the morning, before the official work day begins. So he’s not really “on the clock.”
Nice dodge of the questions and the issue.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 2, 2004 09:22 PMDavid, Adrienne,
I’ve had a major problem with John Ashcroft ever since I heard that prayer and bible study were a regular part of his DOJ meetings - this was well before 9/11 and the outrages that are contained within the Patriot Act. I’m a firm believer in the separation of Church and State and hearing he did that made my blood run cold.…I understand, Adrienne. Being Buddhist for all of my adult life, I have grave concerns over eliminating separation of church and state as well.
How in God’s name does reading a bible at work destroy the separation of church and state?
I would seriously question the values of anyone who actually felt threatened by anyone exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and religion on the job or any where else.
Suppose they were having pro-Kerry meetings, or trancendental meditation for the growth of government? It just seems silly. A devout muslim would have to pray toward mecca 5 times a day, which would occur during work hours. Does that preclude a muslim from ever serving at the head of the justice department? Think about it.
Several aides also said many of Ashcroft’s top staffers — including the chief of staff, the deputy chief of staff and the communications director — have never attended the devotional meetings, nor have they been pressured to do so. They say that the sessions are open to all Justice employees, Christians or otherwise, and that one of the regular participants is an Orthodox Jew.
The general concept of Separation of church and state was meant to prevent the government from imposing it’s view of religion on it’s citizens. Today it is used to do just that. Instead of protecting people it is used to stifle religion on the job. Separation of Church and State does not and cannot trump personal freedom of religion. Just because you work for the government doesn’t mean you must throw your religion away.
Back to the Patriot Act,
My favorite unconstitutional power granted by the act: sneek & peek. An FBI agent, on his own authority and without a warrant, can break into your home while you’re away, search & seize whatever he wants (like that pizza from last night in the fridge), and he never has to notify you that it happened. Sweet! For him, anyway. Bad for us.
I think you are misinformed, or you are leaving out pertinent information about what can be done as a ‘sneak and peek’. I think a judge still must be consulted. And you still must be notified… eventually.
One thing we can all agree about is that the information out there is confusing and vague. And that is not good for laws.
1) The patriot act is a law. It does not supercede the constitution. There may indeed be unconstitutional parts of this law. The way our system works someone must be harmed by said law and seek redress through the courts in order for it to be found unconstitutional. I happen to think the McCain-Feindgold law is unconstitutional on it’s face, but that’s another issue. Rest assured the patriot act will go to court.
2) The ACLU and others are vague in describing the differences in previous law and what the patriot act is supposed to allow. Given the extreme nature of their advocacy forgive me if I take their cries with a grain of salt. On one hand they say this is unlike anything that’s ever been done before and on the other they say government already has this power.
I think the point is that with a normal warrant, the person of interest, if he were Mohamed Atta, would have to be notified that they were having a warrant executed. As I understand it the Patriot Act gives law enforcement more power to not notify the person until much later.
Why this can’t be done by merely altering the notification timing, or if that’s what it really does… I don’t know.
I think a judge still must be consulted. And you still must be notified… eventually.
Eric, if you had said, “a judge still must be consulted… eventually.” I’d say you’re right. I’m glad to see you’re informed on the issue, and can still support an administration seeking that power.
It’s all well and good to say that the constitutionality will work itself out, but the DOJ had to know they were pushing, if not breaking, the outer limits of the Constitution.
Eric wrote:
“How in God’s name does reading a bible at work destroy the separation of church and state?”
Privately reading a bible and having prayer meetings which you would like other people to attend at work are two very different things. And I admit that I do happen to feel that church, or in nature, or within your home are the places to pray, rather than the workplace.
Eric:
“I would seriously question the values of anyone who actually felt threatened by anyone exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and religion on the job or any where else.”
In certain places - I do feel religion threatens people - because it can be viewed as harrasment or call discrimination into question. The first amendment does not give one person the right to trample on the freedom of others who may hold a different opinions.
Eric:
“A devout muslim would have to pray toward mecca 5 times a day, which would occur during work hours. Does that preclude a muslim from ever serving at the head of the justice department? Think about it.”
Of course it doesn’t preclude that person, but if they were disrupting people by praying loudly or if they began trying to convert people on the job, I would have a problem with it.
From the article that Martin directed us to:
“Several aides also said many of Ashcroft’s top staffers — including the chief of staff, the deputy chief of staff and the communications director — have never attended the devotional meetings, nor have they been pressured to do so. They say that the sessions are open to all Justice employees, Christians or otherwise, and that one of the regular participants is an Orthodox Jew.”
From that same article what I noticed was this:
“But within the massive Justice Department, with about 135,000 employees worldwide, some who do not share Ashcroft’s Pentecostal Christian beliefs are discomfited by the daily prayer sessions — particularly because they are conducted by the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, entrusted with enforcing a Constitution that calls for the separation of church and state.
The purpose of the Department of Justice is to do the business of the government, not to establish a religion,” said a Justice attorney, who like other critics was unwilling to be identified by name. “It strikes me and a lot of others as offensive, disrespectful and unconstitutional… . It at least blurs the line, and it probably crosses it. It’s alienating,” another lawyer said. “He’s using public spaces to have a personally meaningful event to which I would not be welcome, nor would I feel welcome.”
To me it speaks volumes that these people will not be identified by name.
I agree with this:
“As the leader of the nation’s top law enforcement body, they contend, he has a responsibility not to offend employees of different faiths or test the limits of accepted guidelines.”
Because this is the danger:
“It feels extremely exclusive, that if you don’t participate in that kind of religion, that your career could be affected by it,” the attorney said. “If I had some political aspirations and wanted to work for the front office and didn’t have the same religious feelings as he does, my non-participation could adversely affect me.”
Eric:
“The general concept of Separation of church and state was meant to prevent the government from imposing it’s view of religion on it’s citizens.”
Yes. All due to the clear thinking of our Elightenment era founders. We’re so incredibly lucky to have had the men of that era construct our government.
Eric:
“Today it is used to do just that. Instead of protecting people it is used to stifle religion on the job.”
I don’t agree. I think that the people who wish to impose religion everywhere, especially the workplace, or such places as the schools or in courthouses think that their rights and their religion somehow supercede the rights and religions of others.
Eric:
“Separation of Church and State does not and cannot trump personal freedom of religion.”
I feel it depends entirely on _location_.
Eric:
“Just because you work for the government doesn’t mean you must throw your religion away.”
I think the vast majority of Americans would never expect them to. I know I certainly don’t.
Eric:
“Back to the Patriot Act,
I think you are misinformed, or you are leaving out pertinent information about what can be done as a ‘sneak and peek’. I think a judge still must be consulted. And you still must be notified… eventually.”
From the ACLU website regarding ‘sneak and peek’:
“The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures requires the government to both obtain a warrant and to give notice to the person whose property will be searched before conducting the search. The notice requirement enables the person whose property is to be searched to assert her Fourth Amendment rights. For example, a person with notice might be able to point out irregularities in the warrant, such as the fact that the police are at the wrong address, or that because the warrant is limited to a search for a stolen car, the police have no authority to be looking in dresser drawers. The Supreme Court recently affirmed that notice is a key Fourth Amendment protection. However, it has not ruled on the constitutionality of sneak and peek searches.
The major rationale for requiring a warrant before conducting a search is to ensure that a neutral and detached third person - usually a magistrate - will review a warrant prior to issuance. The invasion of privacy must be held to a minimum. In a covert search warrant, there are often no limitations on what can or will be searched. Any protections afforded by a warrant are meaningless when the searching officer has complete and unsupervised discretion as to what, when and where to search and the individual owner is not provided notice so cannot assert and protect her rights.
The government already has the authority, in limited situations, to delay notification, for searches of some forms of electronic communications that are in the custody of a third party. It must show the judge that if the person to be searched is given notice, one of the five things will happen - (1) an individual’s physical safety will be endangered, (2) someone will flee prosecution, (3) evidence will be tampered with, (4) potential witnesses will be intimidated or, (5) an investigation would be jeopardized or a trial unduly delayed.
Section 213 would take an extremely limited authority and expand it so that it would be available in any kind of search (physical or electronic) and in any kind of criminal case. The standard that law enforcement must show - that an investigation will be jeopardized - is a very low one. Law enforcement agents will seek to delay notification whenever it is to their advantage to do so. Over time, the delayed notice “exception” would become the rule and would deal another serious blow to the privacy protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment.
Even though this provision is one of the most far-reaching of all of the search provisions in the bill, unlike many of those provisions, it does sunset is a permanent change in the law.”
Eric:
“One thing we can all agree about is that the information out there is confusing and vague. And that is not good for laws.”
After reading all the links in those pages I put up it did not seem so confusing to me. I thought they explained it all in clear, easily understood terms.
Eric:
“1) The patriot act is a law. It does not supercede the constitution.”
But certain provisions within that law already do.
Eric:
“Rest assured the patriot act will go to court.”
I think we should let our Senators and Congressmen know what we think of the provisions that violate our rights.
Eric:
“2) The ACLU and others are vague in describing the differences in previous law and what the patriot act is supposed to allow. Given the extreme nature of their advocacy forgive me if I take their cries with a grain of salt. “
The ACLU represents all of us.
Did you read the links entitled “Conservative Voices”?
Eric:
“On one hand they say this is unlike anything that’s ever been done before and on the other they say government already has this power.”
Both of these things are true.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 3, 2004 04:49 PMMY GOD (and I say that as an athiest). Can we please check our facts here?
Ashcroft does not start any offical meetings with prayer and bible studies (as was orignially alleged). He does not require religious observance from anybody, and his meetings happen before work hours begin.
I’m glad, Adrienne, that you followed my link and can at least admit that everybody says that they were never pressured in the slightest to get involved with Aschroft’s religious activities. But what caught your notice, if you read it, is that “some” are “discomfited.” So what? Let them be discomfited. The Constitution protects our rights, even when our rights discomfit others. And that’s its purpose.
Many people discomfit me as they practice their constitutionally protected rights. That’s no reason to scrap the Constitution. If people’s annoyance is enough reason to strip us of our rights to speech, pracitice of religion, and freedom of assembly then we’d best all stay home and keep our mouths shut. I really can’t understand how anyone could frame such a draconian worldview as a defense of our rights under the Constitution—it’s the exact opposite, and extremely troubling.
Posted by: Martin at August 4, 2004 02:11 AMMartin -
From the article you posted:
“Ashcroft said at a Christian Coalition event that “a robed elite have taken the wall of separation designed to protect the church and they have made it a wall of religious oppression.”
And you claim _my_ worldview is draconian?
Article:
“The next year, he told Bob Jones University graduates that America was founded on religious principles, and “we have no king but Jesus.” That statement became the subject of some controversy at his confirmation hearings.”
This is what proves that John Ashcroft has never read the writings of the founders of this nation. If he had he would know that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams and many others were greatly influenced by the philosophical writings of John Locke and also by the Greeks and Romans. Even those who privately considered themselves religious men did not use religious principles to develop our form of government.
Let’s weigh in with a few of the founders:
Thomas Jefferson:
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.”
And:
“I am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greek and Roman leave to us.”
And:
“In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.”
James Madison:
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
Ben Franklin:
“To follow by faith alone is to follow blindly.”
Thomas Paine:
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
John Ashcroft’s Patriot Act has abridged our rights. The founders had some thoughts on that future possiblitiy too:
Jefferson:
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
He also warned:
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. “
But thought that:
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”
John Adams:
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
Thomas Paine:
“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
James Madison:
“We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.”
And:
“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.”
And:
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
And:
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
That last one sounds a lot like the Patriot Act to me - which was so voluminous and incoherent that those who were asked to vote on it didn’t even read it. And we haven’t even gotten to Patriot Act II…
Ben Franklin said in his final speech to the Constitutional Convention said:
Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”
How many lives is it worth to defend the constitution?
ALL OF THEM.
New Hampshire has it right.
Posted by: a guy in st. louis you probably know at August 4, 2004 01:37 PMAddrienne, some of those are fine quotes related to the separation of church and state—which have what, exactly, to do with Aschroft’s personal prayer meetings? You still haven’t explained. In fact, what you really seem to be objecting to is the idea that a goverment figure should be allowed to hold and express religious views. Christians are always saying things like “We have no king but Jesus.” That’s part of their belief system. You make it sound like anybody who holds that view, which is a personal religious one, is some kind of threat because they think of Jesus as the King of the United States, which is pretty preposterous.
And some of those quotes are just anti-religious, which is fine—in America we have a right to be either. The Consititution is a wonderful document—it protects you from being forced into religious observances. It protects John Ashcroft from your wish to inhibit his free practice of religion. Win-win, from my point of view.
Posted by: Martin at August 4, 2004 04:00 PMMartin -
” what you really seem to be objecting to is the idea that a goverment figure should be allowed to hold and express religious views.”
No sir, I am not. Again from your article (btw, your article had more amunition in it to discredit your views than it had points to back them up! :D)
“Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, said Ashcroft is at least violating the spirit of the federal rules on workplace prayer. “Ashcroft’s the chief defender of the nation’s civil liberties. He can’t pretend to be just another citizen leading prayers.”
Or as Thomas Jefferson said:
“When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property.”
