Wwen wrote:
Xec, wiretapping is a tip of the iceberg. You should find a copy of this book. Some of the court proceeding are downright Kaffkaesqe and I'm not using a hyberbole.
Librarians can be handed National Security Letters from the FBI which forbid them to speak of the NSL. So that makes fighting it very hard. People can have charges against them, but then the FBI keeps the evidence "secret."
We haven't made a concentration camp for Muslims, but that doesn't mean we aren't taking steps, slowly but surely, into a fascist state. That is generally how it happens. Other countries with such fates were similarily surprised.
Mission creep also comes into play. For instatnce, it was important for them to create a link between terrorisim and the drug war, now the FBI can use the PATRIOT Act to do a lot more under such auspices.
Seriously, I reccomend reading the book instead of listening to me. I'm a terrible debatorer. Rent it from a library or something or it's like $9 on a kindle. It will tell you what the goverment is now allowed to do.
This must be an older book, or the author just declined to mention that the NSL gag orders were ruled unconstitutional years ago.
Like I said before, I think it's a step up if the government actually makes something legal, rather than leaving it illegal and doing it anyway. Because that's what they used to do. The FBI used to wiretap whoever they wanted and break in wherever they wanted, without any kind of warrant or actually any kind of oversight outside of the FBI whatsoever. They engaged in a decades-long covert campaign against basically anyone that campaigned for more rights or more government oversight, and many individuals used information gathered by the FBI this way for personal gain. Incumbent politicians would use the FBI to burglarize and covertly gather dirt on their opponents. Nothing the Patriot Act authorizes is anywhere near as bad as this, and there's no evidence that the FBI is continuing to engage in abuses as severe as these. In fact the main limitation of the FBI at this time was technology, they actually had to break in places and that required a lot of resources and risk. Just imagine what it would be like if we had Hoover running the FBI with 21st century technology and basically a blank check to do whatever he wanted. Would that really be better than what we have today?
You cannot possibly tell me that today we are worse off, freedom-wise, than the 1950s where the private sector voluntarily blacklisted individuals who simply invoked their Fifth Amendment rights in front of the HUAAC. Not blacklisted by the government, but voluntarily blacklisted by almost the entire private sector, indicating the vast majority of the population actually bought the line, "Only someone who's guilty ever pleads the fifth." Today, the private sector actively fights such laws, like the case that got the NSL gag orders ruled unconstitutional.
Another example: The 1960 U-2 incident. Eisenhower blatantly lied, repeatedly, to everyone about it. This wasn't like the Bush WMD "lies" where there's no proof that he actually lied about them, but where they stated the exact opposite of the truth and several agencies conspired to cover it up. When this came out, the people praised him for this. In fact, when Gary Powers was repatriated, he was snubbed by the population for basically
failing to commit suicide in order to protect the CIA's reputation.I'm not sure if today's politicians are more power-hungry than the politicians of 50-60 years ago, but "vigilance" by the average person is orders of magnitude better than it was and thus the problems can't be worse.