lawrocket 3 #1 June 18, 2013 Said General Keith Alexander - head of the NSA - in testimony yesterday: "I would much rather be here today debating this than explaining why we were unable to prevent another 9/11'' The statement is one of core government policy development. "Human rights" doesn't mean what it has always meant. Remember when "human rights" meant the right to be free of government intervention in one's life? The right to free access and disbursement of information? The right to be free from arbitrary search and seizure? The right to petlition? The right to due process. The right to a presumption of innocence? "Human rights" used to mean a negative obligation of the government. That is, "Human rights" - and in particular our Constitutional Rights - were those things the government was obligated NOT to do. What are human rights now? Whatever they are, they trump the Constitution. For the good General understands that he would rather be violating Constitutional rights than, say, working within those constraints. Human rights have now developed into something way way different. Human rights are now a POSITIVE government obligation to provide for the people. The positive obligation to solve problems. Problem - people getting shot. Constitutional right - to be free from government intervention in my private life. Government defines a human right to be safe from shooting, so HIPAA and privacy become "unnecessary legal barriers" that must be removed. Constitutional right - freedom of the press. Human right - to have government protect you from terrorists. Solution - snoop and tail on journalists. Constitutional right - free from warrantless search and seizure. Human right - to have the government protect you from terror. Solution - have analysts identify those who might be terrorists and listen in on phone calls without notice or a warrant. Constitutional right - due process of law. Human right - be free from terrorists. Solution - find "terrorists" and hole them up someplace where they cannot get a trial or get released. Constitutional right - due process of law. Human right - to be free from Japs who may kill us. Solution - find Japs and hole them up someplace where they cannot get a trial or get released. Hey, we'd rather be answering questions about violating what used to be human rights than to be a government not solving problems in the way we want to solve them. Negative obligations suck. Positive obligations mean the government works for your benefit. For your own good. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 385 #2 June 18, 2013 Out of curiosity, is it your argument that the government has absolutely 0 responsibility to try to provide any measure of defense against terrorism or crime? Can you envision or suggest anything the government should do before the event to limit the ability of terrorists or criminals to cause damage to citizens, or should the government be strictly deaf, dumb, and blind to these events until after the fact? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 June 18, 2013 GeorgiaDonOut of curiosity, is it your argument that the government has absolutely 0 responsibility to try to provide any measure of defense against terrorism or crime? Not at all. Much like keeping guns out of the hands of felons, I think it's a proper use of government authority. But the 4th Amendment is there to prevent the government from abusing its desire to protect people. It's like asking whether I'm in favor of murderers going free because the prosecution couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, I would rather a murderer go free than an innocent be imprisoned (which, of course, means that a murderer goes free). [Quote]Can you envision or suggest anything the government should do before the event to limit the ability of terrorists or criminals to cause damage to citizens Old fashioned police work? Informants. Tips. Reasonable articulable suspicion. Yes, it means that crimes occur because they weren't prevented. It also meant that people were free to go about their business. It's a trade off. Obviously, a free society is in tension with an orderly society. But note that Christians have been pushing for their idea of order for a while. [Reply]should the government be strictly deaf, dumb, and blind to these events until after the fact? When you put adverbs in it, you are being argumentative. You are also asking a yes no question (a compound one, at that.). It makes for discussions to be one sided because it doesn't add to them but detracts. I'll re-ask it this way: "where do you draw the line between governments being proactive in preventing crime and being reactive in punishing crime?" To which I answer: I think the government should be free to investigate anything that causes some reasonable articulable suspicion. Once investigation reveals some probable cause that a crime is going to be committed then a warrant can be sworn for arrest. Subsequently, that individual can be indicted if a grand jury determines that probable cause exists. Yes, I means that the government misses some things. The alternative is the dragnet. And like any trawling, there is unavoidable bycatch. Only instead of turtles and dolphins we have people. All set up to ensure a safe and orderly society. Freedom and order are always in tension. An orderly society is not free. A free society has no order. I am in favor of neither extreme. But on balance, I side with "freedom" over "order." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
