The View From Here: More laws mean fewer freedoms
I’ll be the first to admit that when legislative proposals to help national security issues in the name of pinning down suspected terrorists surfaced in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, I was every bit as supportive as the federal government wanted me to be.
Since then, and since more information has been released, that’s not the case. Now that the shock has worn off and people are beginning to think more clearly – or for the first time – about national security and foreign policy, perhaps we can’t afford to lean this way after all.
Right now, the government can find out without too much trouble what we’re reading or our Internet habits by haggling librarians and book store workers. I don’t understand this theory, because most likely, people who don’t want to get caught, won’t, and most cash is untraceable.
Initially, I thought if the government thought I was a terrorist and wanted to know I spend a great deal of my time online reading the news, looking at eBay and that the last book I purchased to my memory was family-related, then more power to them if it helped stop one terrorist. After all, what does the average citizen have to hide?
But now I see how wrong that concept is. I don’t have anything to hide, but I do have my privacy to protect. In the simplest of terms, it’s nobody’s business, really, what I read or where on the Web I go and the government should be ashamed to want to have the ability to essentially spy on average citizens.
It’s gotten to the point where some towns and even some legislators are beginning to recover from the shock of Sept. 11 and question the act.
One California town has encouraged local law enforcement and others who are contacted by federal authorities to refuse requests under the Patriot Act. A host of other cities have passed resolutions to discourage compliance. But the California city, in an act of disobedience, has also adopted an ordinance to actually outlaw some compliance, complete with its own $57 fine.
There are also proposals out there to restore some privacy when it comes to books, but what a shame there is such as thing called the “Freedom to Read Protection Act.” Maybe it’s cleverly titled to draw ire, but what a day in America where such a title exists.
Now we’re looking at the so-called Patriot Act II, the successor to this questionable law. It’s sure to draw a lot of interest because among the “ideas” are expansions to eavesdrop even more.
Among the more controversial of phase two, I believe, is the proposal to give the government authority to collect DNA. That frightens me, I’m sorry to say. And as much as I don’t want to have to worry, reality hits home every April 19, when I hear a rehashing of the tragedy at Waco.
No, we don’t have to look much farther than Ruby Ridge or Waco to realize the government sometimes oversteps its boundaries and makes mistakes. Big ones.
It should be said too, that in the wake of the so-called Patriot Act, one has to wonder exactly how free we all are. We’re fighting an expensive war to liberate another country, and we should all wonder if we will ultimately give them a watered-down version of freedom, given the ideals we seem to have adopted as OK while in a state of shock after our national tragedy.
It makes a lot of sense when G. Gordon Liddy says in his book title that when he was a kid this was a free country — and you don’t even have to be a fan of his to agree.
All it takes is a little thought about how many laws have been passed since you were a kid to wonder how free we really all are.
(Amy Satterwhite is a reporter for the Standard. She can be reached at 473-2191 or by e-mail at [email protected].)