PPlanet-The Police State Act: A Report -Rep. Ron Paul, MD

[Guest guest]

The Police State Act: A Report

 

Rep. Ron Paul, MD | July 26 2005

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/260705policestateact.htm

 

 

 

Congress passed legislation last week that reauthorizes the Patriot Act for

another 10 years, although the bill faced far more opposition than the original

Act four years ago. I’m heartened that more members of Congress are listening to

their constituents, who remain deeply skeptical about the Patriot Act and

expansions of federal police power in general. They rightfully wonder why

Congress is so focused on American citizens, while bin Laden and other terrorist

leaders still have not been captured.

 

 

 

The tired arguments we’re hearing today are that same ones we heard in 2001 when

the Patriot Act was passed in the emotional aftermath of the September 11th

terrorist attacks. If the Patriot Act is constitutional and badly needed, as its

proponents swear, why were sunset provisions included at all? If it’s

unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately? All of this

nonsense about sunsets and reauthorizations merely distracts us from the real

issue, which is personal liberty. America was not founded on a promise of

security, it was founded on a promise of personal liberty to pursue happiness.

 

 

 

One prominent Democratic opined on national television that “most of the

170-page Patriot Act is fine,” but that it needs some fine-tuning. He then

stated that he opposed the ten-year reauthorization bill on the grounds that

Americans should not have their constitutional rights put on hold for a decade.

His party’s proposal, however, was to reauthorize the Patriot Act for only four

years, as though a shorter moratorium on constitutional rights would be

acceptable! So much for the opposition party and its claim to stand for civil

liberties.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, some of my congressional colleagues referenced the recent London

bombings during the debate, insinuating that opponents of the Patriot Act

somehow would be responsible for a similar act here at home. I won’t even

dignify that slur with the response it deserves. Let’s remember that London is

the most heavily monitored city in the world, with surveillance cameras

recording virtually all public activity in the city center. British police

officials are not hampered by our 4th amendment nor our numerous due process

requirements. In other words, they can act without any constitutional

restrictions, just as supporters of the Patriot Act want our own police to act.

Despite this they were not able to prevent the bombings, proving that even a

wholesale surveillance society cannot be made completely safe against determined

terrorists. Congress misses the irony entirely. The London bombings don’t prove

the need for the Patriot Act, they prove the folly of it.

 

 

 

The Patriot Act, like every political issue, boils down to a simple choice:

Should we expand government power, or reduce it? This is the fundamental

political question of our day, but it’s quickly forgotten by politicians who

once promised to stand for smaller government. Most governments, including our

own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them

to do. All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern,

whether we want to recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example of

this. Constitutions and laws don’t keep government power in check; only a

vigilant populace can do that.

 

 

Fight back for stem cells http://www.StemPAC.com

A politician is a man who will double cross that bridge when he comes to it

http://stopviolence.care2.com/