The New McCarthyism

Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:51:52 -0800

> > > For the record, I haven't heard anything like this from my friends
> > put up
> > > the site
> > Give em a few weeks.
> It's been up over a year....

To be fair, your friends were smart.  They have a healthy selection of legal
disclaimers all over their site. Which isn't to say that the SS won't come a
knocking, but see, the knowledge makes the gubbies do a little more grunt
work.  I'd be curious to see if any of the aforementioned examples pointed
out in the article were that wise on their legal rights.
> > She said 'term' not actions.  THere is no comparison between the
> > and the Terrorists in action. Period.  BUt how they are being treated is
> > strikingly similar.
> And while we can accept that McCarthyism was not necessarily a good thing,
> same argument can't be made against what is happening today because no
> communists during the 50's killed 3K+ Americans in one fell swoop.

Ok, see this is equivalent to saying that you drop the Constitution for
those of us who go on a shooting spree.  See, at least the way I look at it,
is that the Constitution is great for us every day joes, but it only becomes
practical with application. We don't suspend the Constitution when someone
does really henious shit.  Nor do I think we should now.  This is not the
same as saying 'Let them go' .  It's more like giving credence to the bits
our forefathers put down on paper.  If we can't use those rights and powers
in the shittiest of times, why bother fucking having them?

Again, by suspending constitutional rights for any folks who are in this
country, we run the risk of magically eroding those rights for everyone.  I
would rather suffer the consequences of trying the bastards (and the fucks
who did this, are bastards) in a court of law, with a real-live-judge, with
all the protections the Constitution affords, even if (and the odds are so
unbelievably slim) they all got off.  I'd rather see our Constitution used,
instead of a shadowy, unprotected Constitutional fuck-off like a military
tribunal, with no oversight, convicting every last one.  I trust the
Constitution.  I wouldn't be bothering to invest a shitload of time and
money learning about it otherwise, nor would I bother living in this

Yes, before you laugh, I already know I'm in the minority.  Sucks to be me.

> > > I'm not willing to give up a damn bit of my rights.
> >
> > You already are.  Go ahead, read a few of the new  laws that have been
> > I wonder if you'd feel the same way were you one of the many who are
> > in that situation.  Probably not.  You know, unless you were here before
> Wrong.  I would feel even more STRONGLY in favor of what is going on.
> you're an immigrant trying to become a citizen you know (or should) that
> not on the same level as those with citizenship as it pertains to
> opportunities, consequences of actions, privacy, etc.

Same level, versus near complete erosion of the Bill of rights is a big
fucking difference boyo.

 The doctor from San
> Antonio that was detained for 2 weeks because he knew one of the
> didn't bitch in the slightest.  He thanked the FBI for doing their job so

Good for him.  I'm more curious about the folks like the Pakistani gent who
died of a 'heart attack' behind prision walls.  Or those kids who don't get
to say much of anything because they remain incommunicado with their
lawyers, family and friends.

> And you know what, whether you won the lucky country lottery and were born
> here, just got your 1st passport last week, or who whose lineage descends
> native doesn't freaking matter, you're all equal when it
> to your citizenship status.

Well according to you, no we're not.  You'd already negate the rights of the
passport kids (and to hell with the illegals), for a few bits of added
'security' and 'comfort'.  As for the Native Americans, countless fuckups on
their rights have already existed for years, but thats another tangent (Tho,
I still love the Trust account/Department of the Interior debacle [1])

> H1B's, foreign students, etc. aren't.  Why is it so hard to conceptualize
> this category of people who are VISITORS to our country would have go
> some hassle?
Some hassle isn't my bitch.   Massive erosions of rights that we guarantee
to all folks, now, that is my bitch.

> I'm more than willing to have new laws and restrictions placed on that
> as opposed actual American citizens.

I won't argue slippery slope.  I'll just laugh.  Really.  To go back to
McCarthy and historical precident, it starts with these folks and moves
downwards.  When I was geeking at some of the Constitutional cases in a
intro Con Law class I took at UCI, I sort of noticed a pattern of rights
erosion (This BTW, is not scientific, historical or accurate in all cases)

Government wanted more power -- > Go after Immigrants/Visa kids/
Illegals --> Gubbies ain't satisfied, so they target --> Drug dealers, big
nasty mean guys --> Still not satisfied, so they work on --> Dissidents,
wacko groups, nuts --> Progresses downwards to the cases where they 'get the
wrong house' or accuse the 'wrong guy'.

Again, I'm noticing trends.  A lot of theprivacy cases I was reading, seemed
to hit this (or variations of this).  So great, while it affects 'them' now,
keep your eyes peeled.  Bush, seems to be fastracking this process.
IT will be interesting to see in 3 years, what has gone on in the way of
joeschmoe citizens and their rights.  I could be absoloutley wrong, and way
off base.  I account for that.  But I could be right.

And yes, I know those laws are being
> passed that are f'ing with my rights...for example, the lefty that wants
> quarantine me in a city if someone somewhere decides that there is a case
> small pox...

Which 'lefty' and what law is that?  Just curious.  What I was hitting at
was more things like Magic lantern (which isn't a law, but seems to be
something the FBI will use, if they ever get past the bad press), warantless
searches of email/internet activity, roving wiretaps, calling hacking
terrorist activity, or searching folks for 'questionable materials'.  Ya
know.  The real fun stuff.  Or even better, the DMCA (which while not a
constitutional right, does infringe on a bungload of personal freedoms that
have been court enumerated for quite some time).

Ah well.

I argue that this won't make sense until it really starts getting ugly.  And
I'll be the first to admit, it hasn't gotten >ugly< yet.

[1] -- Nice
good ol' privacy violation.