Originally posted by Sestias
Maybe there are some people in this country who really are dangerous to the rest of us. I don't know any, but it stands to reason that in a nation
as big as ours there are some who want to bring the country down and need to be surveilled.
I never heard critics of the Patriot Act claim that there aren't dangerous people and that law enforcement and intelligence agencies shouldn't have
the adequate tools to do their job and keep us safe, but safety shouldn't be our only concern in current times—there are huge implications for
privacy and even for the presumption of innocence.
When questioned, defenders of the Patriot Act usually point to September 11 as the reason for the introduction and need of such measures that it
implements. An analysis of the events and what information law enforcement and intelligence agencies had on the suspects behind the attacks, quickly
show us that, some agency or another, had some piece of relevant information but, we're told, were unable to connect the dots.
How does a failure of inter-agency communication and information sharing translate into, for example, a systematic nationwide voice and electronic
surveillance program? The federal agencies failed, and not because they couldn't listen to everyone's calls or read their emails. And yet, now,
thanks in large part to the Patriot Act, everyone is under constant surveillance.
We can't have a free society without a balance between privacy and state powers. The Framers recognized this and made certain protections, such as
the ones expressed in the 4th Amendment, the supreme law of the land.
Frequently quoted, in many forms, but with good reason and as true today as it was then, Benjamin Franklin told us that “
they who can give up
essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”—I agree.
