United States of America: Freedoms

Dodgy topic to start discussing, but its been on my mind since Sept 11th happened. People from the US are vastly proud of their civil liberties and freedom of speech. They've often refered to the US as being the last true democracy, where all freedoms are found. But things seem to have changed, and I'd like to know peoples opinions of these changes.

Now, obviously there will be Bush bashing in this thread. Just don't go overboard, and stick to the topic. (Something I can be definetly accused of not doing )

The US continues to be in the grip of a government- and media-generated “terrorist” hysteria, despite the fact that there has not been a single terrorist attack reported on US soil since 9/11.

Television networks edit shows scheduled for broadcast to cut out anything they think might offend Washington’s moralists. “Live” events are now tape-delayed so someone can hit the “bleep” button in case someone does or says something sexy. Even NASCAR, where the good-old boys used to be able to say what they really felt about some dickhead who knocked them into the wall, announced it would fine any driver who cursed during radio and TV interviews.

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) threatened to fine "Clear Channel" nearly a half-million because Howard Stern talked about sex on his radio show and accompanied that talk with fart sounds. Sure Howard Stern can go a bit far in his shows, but being fined excessively for mentioning sex on "air"? How often do you hear discussions here in Ireland abt Sex on the Radio?

Fcc Website - http://www.fcc.gov/

The new Michael Moore movie seems to have fallen victim to this also.

And these changes don't seem to be applied to just the Media, but also to schools. A friend sent me this link, and it suprised the hell out of me. I didn't think the US had changed enough for this to occur. <shrugs>

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOPN62051504.htm

The US has always had a deep core religious fever to it, especially when it came to bad language, and sex. Its never really had the image that movies made them out to be, but they seem to have gone a few steps further. Perhaps its Bush being a religious nut that has helped them gain even more influence. I don't actually know.

The US administration seems to believe in freedom of speech as long as it does not conflict with their interests, or when it is particularly in their interests to do so. This commitment to free speech quickly evaporates when faced with a direct threat to their interests by what is freely being said.

Internationally, the US administration has encouraged the Qatari government to pressure popular channels such as Al-Jazeera to change their content. We have seen the United States set up its own media in the Middle East to propagate their propaganda. More recently we have seen them physically close down a newspaper in Iraq that published unfavourable articles.

In fact, the list of US opposition to free speech when it opposes their interests internationally is long and well documented. However, today in the United States, as domestic freedoms are eroded away, so too is that of free speech. The difference is that while the United States criticises other countries for their overt policies contradictory to free speech, simultaneously the US administration uses covert policies to control the information and opinions circulated amongst their population.

Changes to the Civil Liberties in the States includes:

* Freedom from Unreasonable Searches: The government may now search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation. (Sections 203, 206, 213, 215 & 218*)

* Right to a Speedy and Public Trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. (Section 412, and President Bush's order designating "enemy combatant"*)

* Right to Liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. (Dept. of Justice Interim regulation 66 FR 183, President Bush's Mili tary Order establishing military tribunals, and order designating "enemy combatant" and USA Patriot Act Section 412.)

* Freedom of Association: Now, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation. (Sections 215, 411, 802 and Attorney General's Edict)

* Freedom of Information: The government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests. (Sections 411 & 412; Dept.of Justice Interim regulation 66 FR 183 and Attorney General's edict)

* Freedom of Speech: Our government may now prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. (Section 215)

* Right to Legal Representation: The government may monitor federal prison conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes. (Dept. of Justice Interim regulation 66 FR 211).

Among the new powers adopted by the US government is the right to administer searches without a warrant. This law not only applies to terror-based searches, but also routine criminal investigations. Police can now search homes, computers and even cars without reasonable suspicion. This law encroaches on the fourth amendment of the US Constitution, which states that people have the right to
be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

For Example:

Immigrants have been major targets of the USAPATRIOT Act and post-9/11 laws. On January 12, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal challenging the secrecy surrounding the arrest and detention of hundreds of non US citizens since 9/11.

According to Amnesty International (see http://www.amnestyusa.org/stateofhumanrights/factsheet.html>), between September 11, 2001, and September 30, 2003, the US government racially profiled Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asians, forcing 177,260 men and boys to register with federal officials. While 2870 were detained after registration (23 remain in custody) and 13,799 people face deportation, none have been charged with terrorism-related offences.

Summary:

The US, while believing itself to be at war, seems to have lost the principles that they tell the world that are worth fighting for. The US belief that they have the greatest nation for social liberties, and freedoms seems to have been destroyed by their Administrations security actions. Have these decisions and actions gone too far? I personally think so. I'd like to know what you think though.....

dahamsta

After the prisoner abuse issues were highlighted, I wanted to do a sig for here with one of the pictures, captioned "Home of the Brave"; and a picture of Guantanamo, captioned "Land of the Free". Not because I wanted to wind Americans up, but because I wanted to make a statement. And I didn't, obviously, because it would be viewed by many as "anti-american".

That's what bugs me most about America's loss of freedoms. Not that the Bush administration wants to take freedoms away - it's an unfortunate fact of life that that's what Governments, right and left, tend to do - but that Americans don't seem to be able to see:

a) that there is little or no evidence the removal of many of these freedoms will make them any more secure;

b) that the current administration appears to be removing rights not just to improve security, but to achieve their own ends politically and financially; and

c) that what America does affects the rest of the world, which creates a huge responsibility; which they're not living up to.

I like Americans, or at least the Americans I've personally met have been honest, genuine people that have had a favourable impression on me. I like America, or at least I like the American dreams of life, liberty and freedom. Going to America has been a dream of mine since childhood, but unfortunately, that's no longer the case. America has been ruined for me. And although Al Queda certainly has a responsilbility for that, so does America, and so does it's people.

Of course my like or dislike of what America represents these days probably isn't high on many American's list of priorities, but what it represents to them should. From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem to be. They seem to have forgotten the American dream, what the country is supposed to be all about.

adam

Gurgle

Civil rights of US citizens have taken a serious hammering in recent years but its the old trade off between security and freedom and at the moment security is the bottom line in the USA.

Arguably, they could have actually prevented further attacks in the last 3 years by forcing those 177,260 men and boys to register with federal officials.

Maybe it really is all about accelerating past a recession, by kick-starting the arms manufacturers and freeing up some oil.

We don't know (and never will) what political / economic / social analyses were dumped on GWB's desk when he entered the Oval office. Thats 'big picture' stuff and its very very important to those looking at it that the little people never see it.

Originally posted by dahamsta:
a) that there is little or no evidence the removal of many of these freedoms will make them any more secure;

They don't need evidence, they need popular perception. They need votes.

bonkey

Originally posted by Gurgle
Civil rights of US citizens have taken a serious hammering in recent years but its the old trade off between security and freedom and at the moment security is the bottom line in the USA.

Actually, its mostly the old tradeoff between "perception of security" and freedom.

If you read a lot of the critiques of the so-called "security" improveents, they show how very few of them actually improve security in any meaningful way. They just make people feel more secure....and there comes a point where one has to question the logic behind stripping freedoms to make the person being stripped feel better.

Like you said...its about winning votes.....conning the people into thinking that they're getting something better for what they're giving up, so that they'll vote for you.

When you look at it from the government's point of view, its an almost-unmissable opportunity. Win votes by effectively taking from the people what they value most and giving them nothing but spin in return....oh...and managing to squeeze in some favours to big business along the way.


jc

dahamsta

Originally posted by Gurgle
They don't need evidence, they need popular perception. They need votes.

Votes are by definition political; they have nothing to do with security. But perhaps you have a point that I'm missing: Are you saying that votes will improve security? If so, how? Or are you just saying that it's all just about the votes for them, and if that's the case, do you feel they're right?

How does perception improve security? I'm certainly not fooled by the perceptual procedures put in place, and I sincerely doubt terrorists are either.

adam

pork99

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

mike65

I'm waiting for the HUAC to be reformed...lookout Michael Moore.

Mike.

Linoge

Originally posted by klaz
Dodgy topic to start discussing, but its been on my mind since Sept 11th happened. People from the US are vastly proud of their civil liberties and freedom of speech. They've often refered to the US as being the last true democracy, where all freedoms are found. But things seem to have changed, and I'd like to know peoples opinions of these changes.

Had to laugh when I saw this. I was thinking, maybe she does make some valid points.... then I read on and realised that some of it looked a bit familiar .You didn't write this, you didn't even summarise it. All you did was copy and paste from a few pages.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=15719
http://www.khilafah.com/home/lographics/category.php?DocumentID=9509&TagID=1
http://www.teenink.com/Past/2003/April/Opinion/AreYourCivil.html
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/568/568p13.htm

You try so hard to gain respect in here. Well thats not going to happen if you can't think for yourself and are passing off other peoples opinions as your own. You could have at least mentioned you ripped it from a few pages:eek:

In relation to the post:

I think that our perception of Americans is that they all believe their own hype. Not every American believes that Saddam Hussein murdered 15 children with his bare hands, neither do they beleive that every country "should speak American".

And of course I'm going to hear now how "They were the ones who elected that war mongerer GW Bush!" Yet we were the ones who elected "look the other way Bertie". The U.S. at least has a long history of war, whereas the Republic of Ireland has a history of neutrality- Which country made the electoral blunder?

Yes, we like to think that Americans really are up their own ass (and with fools like Michael Moore spouting a load of drivel just to make money who can blame us) but for Gods sake, give Joe "Tommy Hilfiger" American a break. They are people living in a country not neanderthals living in caves.

bobbyjoe

Sussed Rapid!!

We got some dodgy laws here ourselves you can be charged under Section four of the Criminal Damage Act with the intent to cause damage if you have stencils and spray paint.

Polly Murphy was kept in prison for 9 days has to report to a garda station 3 times a week and has to wait till the 10th of November (6 months) to have her case heard. She's English by the way so its a bit of an inconvenience, for what??

Section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act
trespass on any building or the curtilage thereof in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another.

chewy

problem i have police and government agency promoting this "security" or peopl in favour of it thing is how they say if your not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about...

i think you do, there been countless examples of people being blacklisted by mistake, sure all those planes that were halted at the beginning they year, one of names that sparked the alert was that of seven year old boy , they have no idea what they are doing... and then theres that no fly list, the security might be ok if it were accountable

think if those protesters arrested under terrorist laws in england....

my point is the it effect everyone ,but im struggling to come up with examples.... civil liberties is not very tangible eveyone can see torture is wrong when a pic is taken of it... but civil liberties is harder to quantify... perhaps it just doesn't affect the average joe and one does have to look and the poor and persecuted and imprisoned to see what our society is like...

went to an iccl amnesty international talk recently which touched on the subject

my report here

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=64420

Had to laugh when I saw this. I was thinking, maybe she does make some valid points.... then I read on and realised that some of it looked a bit familiar .You didn't write this, you didn't even summarise it. All you did was copy and paste from a few pages.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=15719
http://www.khilafah.com/home/lograp...ID=9509&TagID=1
http://www.teenink.com/Past/2003/Ap...eYourCivil.html
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/568/568p13.htm

Linoge, In all honesty I didn't completely rip the ideas contained herein. Out of the list above I saw two of the links provided, and i grabbed sections. Should have made reference to that. My Apologies. I usually do.

http://www.teenink.com/Past/2003/Ap...eYourCivil.html
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/568/568p13.htm

Another page I referenced was:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46784,00.html?tw=wn_story_related

You try so hard to gain respect in here. Well thats not going to happen if you can't think for yourself and are passing off other peoples opinions as your own. You could have at least mentioned you ripped it from a few pages

Oddly enough, the thread is my own. But yes, i agree I should have mentioned the links. Cheers for the heads up.

Yes, we like to think that Americans really are up their own ass (and with fools like Michael Moore spouting a load of drivel just to make money who can blame us) but for Gods sake, give Joe "Tommy Hilfiger" American a break. They are people living in a country not neanderthals living in caves.

Thats all very well and all, but you're missing my point. The liberties that the US are so proud about, are disappearing. Ireland is more free than the US at the moment. Hell, considering some of the laws recently passed, many eastern countries are more liberal.

And where does that leave us? It leaves the most powerful nation on earth, completely under the thumb of the Administration. The people have always been the conscience of the government, but the US government is heading the way of the all powerful. And anything that happens on that level in the States has an impact of the rest of the world. I really don't want to see the US go the way of Russia during the "cold war".

Gurgle

Originally posted by dahamsta:
Are you saying that votes will improve security?

Nope.

Or are you just saying that it's all just about the votes for them

Yep.

do you feel they're right?

Nope.

How does perception improve security?

I meant that the perception by the american people that security has been improved will win votes.

Originally posted by Linoge:They were the ones who elected that war mongerer GW Bush!

Arguable: he kinda slipped in through a loophole. We have no such excuse for Bertie.
Since he didn't get a majority on his first attempt, Bush has had to do all he could to convince voters that he was the man to handle the 'security crisis'. First, the voters had to be convinced there is a security crisis.

Linoge

Originally posted by klaz

Thats all very well and all, but you're missing my point. The liberties that the US are so proud about, are disappearing. Ireland is more free than the US at the moment. Hell, considering some of the laws recently passed, many eastern countries are more liberal.

And where does that leave us? It leaves the most powerful nation on earth, completely under the thumb of the Administration. The people have always been the conscience of the government, but the US government is heading the way of the all powerful. And anything that happens on that level in the States has an impact of the rest of the world. I really don't want to see the US go the way of Russia during the "cold war".

The new powers outlined in your post do sound like some of the powers the KGB used to have, but most Americans will never be affected by these laws. I doubt that the Miranda warnings will be changed.
"You have the right to be kept silent and be forced to answer questions, everything you can imagine may be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attourney, should you wish to use this right we will beat you down with our batons, if you cannot afford an attourney an electric chair will be used on you at government expense"
I think these are the rights the Military Police are reading to the Iraqis though:)

Thing is, I'm reminded of what i read abt the 1920's, and 1930's. when Hitler brought about the security state within Grmany. Sure, the measures didn't affect most Germans, but eventually they did. I'm not going to put Bush in the same light as Hitler, but whenever a nation that was once liberal becomes more strict & controlled, it comes closer to becoming a security state. Which isn't to the good for anyone.

I could be far far off the mark. I really hope i am.

vorbis

klaz I think you're scaremongering tbh. I thought Stern got fined for going overbord on some shows. Can't remember the details but he'd be well past any radio presenter in ireland. He's still on air though so he's hardly been censored.

Moore's film issue has been discussed before. Its not censorship as Disney made a business decision not to distribute it. Someone else will though. The entire thing though was a publicity stunt by Moore. Also i'd wait to see how the new laws pan out with regards to law and order before saying that middle eastern countries are more liberal. I'm sure we have some ominously worded laws on our books as well.

I'm sure we have some ominously worded laws on our books as well.

Oh I agree. Most nations have laws that are freaky in the extreme, if applied. Ireland is hardly likely to enforce those laws. The Current US administration is though. But I agree, its a bit far-fetched.

vorbis

matter of perception i suppose klaz. Personally I think they'd be just as likely as our lot to enforce them.

dahamsta

Originally posted by klaz
Ireland is more free than the US at the moment.

Hmmmm. I don't think I'd go this far. I'd say that, on balance, we're about on a par at the moment; which of course means the U.S. is far less free that it should be. I don't mean to sound patronising, but it's important to remember that activists can be just as bad as governments when it comes to cherrypicking issues.

I think a good portion of the freedom issue is caused, as Gurgle highlights, by popular perception. I wouldn't like to make a sweeping statement like "Americans are gullible", but on the whole a large proportion of them do seem to be blinded by an indefinable something. I can't understand it, I wish I could.

Originally posted by Gurgle
I meant that the perception by the american people that security has been improved will win votes.

Fair enough, I can't argue with that; although as I've said, I wish I could understand it. I'm guessing it's caused by general disinterest in politics though. Friends of mine that don't follow politics tend to have very queer, usually very populist ideas. I think the tabloids have a lot to answer for here, but perhaps I'm just being a snob.

Originally posted by vorbis
klaz I think you're scaremongering tbh.

I don't think s/he is vorbis. This is one of the issues I see with strengthening of authority and dilution of freedoms: Most of the time these changes are made a little at a time, and people either don't notice them, or write them off as a small price to pay for security/competition/whatever. But it all adds up, eventually we'll turn around and realise that we have little or nothing left.

Most of the time I don't even think that it's an intentional process, it just works out that way. But because it does happen, I think we need to fight, and fight hard, against every little change; to make sure they're made for the right reasons, to make sure they're implemented correctly, to make sure they can be revoked if the reason for them goes away.

adam

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
Television networks edit shows scheduled for broadcast to cut out anything they think might offend Washington’s moralists. “Live” events are now tape-delayed so someone can hit the “bleep” button in case someone does or says something sexy.

Many stations use time-delays of a few seconds, although it isn't always sucessful.

Should they get the National Guard to put on a homosexual orgy during half-time at the next supbobowl?

The Next World War is an interesting (if slightly self-inflating) read. It details how the Americans would fight an "effects based war" where destroying the enemy leaderships ability to use information (receive, process, decide, send) of all kinds would be destroyed. The first two months of the war in Iraq are a demonstartion of this.

Unfortunately they appear to have turned the principles of this war inward.

Tuars

Originally posted by vorbis
klaz I think you're scaremongering tbh. I thought Stern got fined for going overbord on some shows. Can't remember the details but he'd be well past any radio presenter in ireland. He's still on air though so he's hardly been censored.

Stern says he was fired from Clearchannel when he started complaining about Bush. He has been going overboard for years and nothing was done. And even though he is still on the air and is technically not censored, the fact that Clearchannel control so many of the radio stations in the US means that in reality he is as good as censored.


Unrelated to the above but related to the topic, I see that the US is now preventing homosexuals from donating blood and organs because they are a high risk group.

Victor

[Off topic, but]

Originally posted by Tuars
Unrelated to the above but related to the topic, I see that the US is now preventing homosexuals from donating blood and organs because they are a high risk group.

The same ban exists in Ireland. I suspect it exists in many places.

Gurgle

AFAIK, you get paid for blood in the US.

The list of restrictions here always seemed over the top to me but at the same time they do have to be as careful as possible, erring on the side of caution and all that.