Socyberty > History

As It Is: The Patriot Act

Is the Patriot Act constitutional, or does it take away more rights than it protects?

A monumental event in American History was called the Boston Tea Party. Outraged colonists angered by unfair taxes, and lack of representation under the cover of nightfall rowed out to large tea ships anchored in the Boston harbor and disguised like American Indians to protect their identities from British troops, they used hatchets and tossed the contents of the ship into the harbor.

It was perhaps one of the single most important events in pre American history. It showed British troops and a far off tyrant and members of British Parliament that Americans would refuse to be taken advantage of, and that when push came to shove Americans were willing and able to push back.

The colonists were severely chastised by British troops and many were taken into custody without proper provocation or legal warrants, these actions predominantly prompted the bill of rights that protects every American from prosecution from outlaw branches of government. It also set the basis for a model of governing that would spread across the globe and revolutionize democracy for over two hundred years.

Today democracy is once again challenged by unofficial and outlaw branches of government that maliciously ignore the bill of rights and persecute innocent civilians with terrorist tactics that make them fear for the freedoms that are guaranteed by the government since the American colonists ran British regulars out of US Territory and claimed independence from a foreign tyrant.

I am speaking of the Patriot Act, which aside from one word in its title has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism. A patriot fights against tyranny against which lesser people have no defense. They do not hold global imperialism to be a method of spreading the message of liberty, nor do they promote security at the sacrifice of personal liberties.

Benjamin Franklin was quoted as saying “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26 2001, The act expanded the authority of US Law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of investigating and eliminating threats of terrorism both locally and abroad. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, which legally comes with a broad spectrum of definitions.

Among allowed activities government agencies under the blanket purpose of exposing and eliminating acts of terrorism which are not well defined, they can tap phone lines, monitor email and other electronic transmissions including web surfing. They are permitted by the Patriot act to without legal process examine financial and medical records, and has eased the restrictions on intelligence gathering activities. The act also expanded the Secretary of State's authority to regulate financial transactions of private civilians as well as large companies.

What did Benjamin Franklin mean when he said; “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” What did he mean by this statement? It has been noted throughout history that almost all of the great empires started with their roots in democracy, and nearly all of those began giving up liberties in the pursuit of security. Throughout history the use and manipulation of mass hysteria has been used numerous times by relentless tyrants to strip people of their rights and set in a controlled dictatorship, or form a mighty empire. More than any other predator fear of loss has been the downfall of the greatest of men.

1
Liked It
I Like It!
Related Articles
Imperial Presidency and George W. Bush  |  Metropolis: City Life Then and Now
More Articles by James A Steele
Four Leaf Clovers  |  America at Large: Who Cares About You?
Latest Articles in History
Unoffical Autobiography of Eugene Jacques, First Black Pilot  |  Mr Jefferson's Bad Sheep
Comments (4)
#1 by John, Feb 3, 2008
I agree the government has become too intrusive into our lives. They have hands in our pocket books, and now they can without due process arrest you and search your possessions and your home without a warrant? All in the name of security? Security for whom? Now I believe that the government is here to protect us, and our rights, but NOT by taking them away from us. You just can not help people and cause them harm at the same time. That is just common sense. I am a patriot, but the one thing that I will never stand for is the loss of my freedom.
#2 by Mark, Feb 3, 2008
I agree completely. I work with security at a major airline and for three months after 9-11 we were told to detain every fifth person that looked Muslim. How can any government based on the premises that all men are created equal issue an order that is based primarily on racial basis, and this is not the first time. While US troops were fighting Hitler in Germany because he supposedly was detaining Jewish people based solely on ethnic backgrounds we were detaining Japanese on that very same distinction. We are doing the same thing right now in Cuba. Those Muslims have not seen a day of due process, yet they have remained in a concentration camp under the Bush Regime for seven years. Not a single one of them has seen their day in court. How we treat our poverty stricken, our sick and out prisoners defines us as a nation. The whole world is watching the rise of the new American Empire. I for one am ashamed hat things have gotten so bad in this the greatest nation on the face of the earth.

What was it Caesar said just before he declared himself sovereign emperor of Rome? Rome was the greatest nation on earth, The citizens enjoyed many democratic freedoms we do today. Tyrants down through history have risen to power with the full support of the people. They were tricked into a dumned down state akin to a frog boiling in a kettle of water.
#3 by Machmoud Jahosaphats Amadihnajahd, Apr 15, 2008
It should be every third Muslim!
#4 by bob, Apr 27, 2008
write an article saying thatt it IS CONSTITIONAL because i need to find an article on that.
plz&tnx
Post Your Comment:
Name:  
Copy the code into this box:  
Post comment with your Triond credentials?
Inside Socyberty

Activism

 /

Advice

 /

Crime

 /

Death

 /

Disabled

 /

Economics

 /

Education

 /

Ethnicity

 /

Folklore

 /

Future

 /

Gay & Lesbians

 /

Government

 /

History

 /

Holidays

 /

Issues

 /

Languages

 /

Law

 /

Lifestyle Choices

 /

Men

 /

Military

 /

Organizations

 /

Paranormal

 /

People

 /

Philanthropy

 /

Philosophy

 /

Politics

 /

Psychology

 /

Relationships

 /

Religion

 /

Sexuality

 /

Social Sciences

 /

Society

 /

Sociology

 /

Spirituality

 /

Subcultures

 /

Support Groups

 /

Work


Popular Tags
Popular Writers
Powered by
Socyberty
About Us
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Services
Submit an Article
Advertise with Us
Contact

© 2007 Copyright Stanza Ltd. All Rights Reserved.