Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - [internetworkers] PATRIOT Act (for Kurt)

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: brunkb AT ils.unc.edu
  • To: internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [internetworkers] PATRIOT Act (for Kurt)
  • Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:56:52 -0400

I'm happy to see some activism, I guess the "you all" statement in my last message was largely misplaced. The revelations about vote counting aren't very inspiring, but US elections have always been rigged one way or another, so whatever.

Addressing Kurt's message:

I have my own concerns
about "Big Brother" but there is nothing in this form letter that >makes a
good case for repeal.

I think the misuse of the Act is a good case for repealing it. It's purpose is supposedly to address the threat of terrorism in the US. Any other use represents an abuse. The Brits are going through this stuff right now with CCTV cameras. The cameras were "sold" to the public for the sake of protection against terrorism (an absurd notion, but that is what they did). Now the cameras are being used for every little thing and the costs are enormous and not one terrorist has ever been caught by them. So, of course, instead of admitting to a failed policy, it is instead swept under the rug (the memory hole?) using the new argument of "well, they are good for general crime control." The mythical infallibility of the state reminds me of the mythical infallibility of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.

Also, very few Congressmen or Senators actually read the Act before voting on it, so that is another very good reason to do away with it. Their job is to debate and make informed decisions, not vote out of fear and emotional urgency. They didn't do their only job. But they voted themselves a pay raise for the fourth year in a row.


Some jackass got nailed for running a meth lab using the act. How is >this
a bad thing?

And lots of "jackasses" got nailed for running stills, brewing beer, and smuggling liquor in the 1930s. The war on drugs is the worst public policy this side of the Volsted Act. Meth labs are just a symptom of a much, much bigger ill in this country. I don't want the PATRIOT Act used to escalate the insane policies of prohibition, and I doubt that the case in NC will hold up. If the DA can't get a conviction for the charge of running a meth lab (which is illegal, btw), then he must be grasping at straws. There is growing urgency to completely alter these failed policies--Canada is close to legalizing pot, for example. It's about time something new was attempted (and by "new" I mean, a return to personal choice and responsibility). It's only the law enforcement and judicial *industry* in the US that gains from prohibition who are so dead set against it, due to their economic interests. It's just sad that bad policies have to be adhered to so stubbornly for mere "tough on crime" political haymaking.

My personal concern is that the war on terror is a replacement for the war on drugs (we've already been assaulted with propaganda trying to tie drug use to supporting terrorism). Drug prohibition could not justify a $500B Pentagon budget, as well as FBI, NSA, CIA and other agencies' bloated budgets (and despite all of the money already wasted on militarism, America suffered the 9/11 attack). Yet "narco-terrorists" only exist at all because of prohibition. I keep hearing that "the era of big government is back." I keep wondering "did it go anywhere?"


Ben




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page