I have been thinking about some of the comments about the passage of the NDAA. Another source writes
In a country famous for the belief that one is innocent until proven guilty, this is an upsetting change that is being foisted upon the American people with many unaware of what it means. The provisions of the Patriot Act allow the government to spy upon U.S. citizens and the NDAA allows the government to whisk a citizen away for no reason other than being suspected of terrorism.So why has this law been passed when it is very easily seen as unconstitutional? The Fourth Amendment grants liberty from unreasonable seizures, while the Sixth guarantees every U.S. citizen a trial in front of a jury. No matter what supporters of the bill might have said about the provisions being misunderstood, the simple fact is that it is unconstitutional. (see link)
I've thought a lot about our willingness as a people to differentially apply our constitutional protections. I think many of us feel protected by our place in society, our way of life, so that we "know" that this kind of treatment would never happen to us. But political power is a funny dangerous thing. You just never know who and what might have power over your choices. The idea that some government agency could imprison you for an unknown amount of time with no due process on just a suspicion is scary. This country may not have always lived up to its ideals but the basic promises of liberty and justice were in place. Now I think we are chipping away at them.
This is a very interesting article. In general, I think that U.S. citizens are not concerned about constrictions on liberty that they believe don't apply to them. I believe that some people would willing trade some of their constitutional rights in exchange for security and peace of mind. However, I think that it is a slippery slope. If we as U.S. citizens tacitly consent to these infringements on our constitutional rights, more may follow. I think we need to acknowledge the boundary between national security and our civil liberties. Whether or not our opposition to this act will lead to its repeal, I feel as though we need to make a decision as to whether or not we as a nation will trade certain civil liberties for our peace of mind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ryan.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it can be said any better than how Ryan put it. I would just like to add even though we might think we want peace of mind over constitutional liberties, if we find out we don't the law can always be repealed.
ReplyDeleteYes. Well said, Ryan.
ReplyDeleteGreat article, by the way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mike....took the words out of my mouth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ryan.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ryan, but I believe that once a law is in place it is difficult for it to be repealed. We must walk this fine line with caution. How much are we willing to give up for "peace of mind"? Will this bring up more problems for us in the future?
ReplyDeleteI agree with ryan and what others are saying but is it possible that we're only focusing on the negative aspects of what could happen to us if our civil liberties are toiled with....what about if something actually does happen such as another terrorist attack and there is a need for this to be acted upon. Living here with out the threat of feeling like anything could happen in the pleasentville we call Kalamazoo college makes it hard to see both sides of the dilemma. I agree that there are many problems with this but is it possible that they are necessary? I'm not sure.
ReplyDelete