"Security" vs. Privacy

"Periodically revisiting the Patriot Act is a good thing," said Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass. "The Patriot Act was an effort to answer the most difficult question a democracy faces: How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe?"

But... are we more secure? This is the bottom line question that I am asking today. (Update: Here's the latest news story that illustrates why it is useless to suspend the civil rights of all American's in the pursuit of terrorists.)

There is some discussion in some of the blogs about this issue and comments made by wetzel in The Daily Kos referencing the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution summarize my personal anxiety about the passage of this Act. Congress together with the States can amend the Constitution and modify or eliminate the Fourth Amendment and there is a process by which changes can be made. The Patriot Act does not conform to this process and only made sense because it was a "temporary" war time measure which would not be necessary once the 9/11 terrorists were caught and reasonable order established. Supposedly, America's terror wars were won in Afghanistan and Iraq once the people elected their own leaders. So, why should draconian measures continue here in America? Dumb question. America is now engaged in perpetual warfare against "terror." Just like the poor, terror will always be with us.

There are those who say that any law abiding citizen is immune from these draconian anti-"terror" measures. When I ask them to run down the anti-terror laws or any federal law that would cause the FBI or US military to interfere with my right to privacy, they are as stumped as I am. They say to trust the government and chill. I have to remind them that we are the government and if we can't figure out what actions or reactions cause a law abiding citizen to be labeled a bad guy and jailed, then something is very wrong with how we govern ourselves.