Last night after teaching class I listened to the last part of Borough Assembly debate over a resolution to make a statement that would express reservations about the Patriot Act and maintain that the war on terrorism must be pursued while retaining an emphasis on our civil rights. As far as I m concerned, whenever the government comes out with an idea with a title like the “Patriot Act”, some segment of our population is in for a screwing. And sure enough, the Patriot Act is chock full of abuses of our civil liberties and opens the doors for a whole new level of police abuse– this time with the tacit sanction of the State.
And while it is true that there are sunset clauses built into the law that trigger a review in 2005, there is already a vocal contingent of Republican senators attempting to make the laws permanent. Clearly, relying on the legal system to look after itself and curb abuse is not the only avenue available to us as citizens. These safeguards in the Act that Bonnie Williams insists are enough are already in danger of being abrogated, and even this Administration will tell you that the real war on terrorism at home is just getting started. Thus I lose most of my respect for Bonnie Williams, who has sold herself and, more importantly, her constituents down the river.
Besides the pathetic cowardice of our City Council that has chosen to stand behind an evisceration of our civil rights and freedoms in order to save those civil rights and freedoms (Sir, I had to destroy the village in order to save it), I find the twists and turns and contortions that Administration lackeys will go through to try to make their actions in bending us over look like a noble gesture to be rather grotesque
When the possibility of invading Iraq was being discussed, my contention was that there was a better way to approach a military action diplomatically and that I had the most respect for the simple moral argument for getting rid of a despot like Saddam Hussein. The weapons of mass destruction and nuclear capability arguments were non-starters as far as I was concerned because there was no real evidence that he had significant numbers of the first or the capability of the second, and that even if he did, he was not a threat to America, but to his neighbors.
What I received in return was a steady stream of often abusive rhetoric that “to wait for proof was to invite disaster” and that “waiting for proof would be waiting until it’s too late.” Where is that solid conviction now? Many supporters of the Patriot Act are the same people who were making these arguments against following a process before invading Iraq. But suddenly they need indisputable proof of abuse in order to pass a comment on this bad law!? Never mind that proof is handy with a simple Google search (perhaps if the victims’ skin isn’t white they don’t count to these folks). Do these people– the same ones who denounce any gun legislation as the start down a slippery slope and refuse to enact clean air accountability standards because the matter of global warming is still an open scientific debate without definitive proof– really not understand how hyopcritical their stance is?
I’ve long maintained that if Clinton had planned an invasion of Iraq without support of the UN and with the same transparent manipulation this Administration has, all of these staunch supporters would be firmly on the other side. Similarly, conservative Republicans, well known for their near-Libertarian views on state controls and protections, would never stand for the passage of law like the Patriot Act were it not for the fact that it comes from an Administration which they believe can further their own socio-political agenda. What bothers me most about this is not the inherent lack of individual backbone and the moral cowardice. No one is perfect. What bothers me is that these people refuse to own up to their imperfection and the schizophrenic nature of their decision making based on political alliances rather than what is good for the people they supposedly represent and the country they supposedly love.
At least Hank Bartos was willing to come right out and say that he trusts our our political leaders to do the right thing, and that giving up our freedoms is necessary for us now just as it was when he served in the military– thus showing definitively whose ass his nose is permanently stuck in and implying that those of us that cannot support such an encroachment on our rights must really be motivated by our hatred of Bush and his cronies.
The truth is, I wouldn’t support this kind of treachery if it came right from the mouth of St. Democratius himself. It has nothing to do with George W’s lack of intelligense, Cheney’s financial imperatives, Rummy’s own despotic nature… though it does have a bit to do with Ashcroft’s duplicitousness. The simple fact is this is bad law passed at a time of fear and doubt in this country, and it was yet another example of government officials and lobbyists for security entities throughout this country taking advantage of the atmosphere after 9/11 to follow through on long-standing political desires.
Besides revealing to me some heretofore hidden resolve and conviction in sponsors and supporters of the proposed Borough Assembly statement, the one positive benefit from the Patriot Act has been the debate around it exposing the true nature of a number of our political representatives to harsh constitutional and moral daylight (representatives other than the obvious like Orrin Hatch, who is already trying to make this act permanent). This will make my choice much easier when I cast my vote during the next election.
