A day to day acount of the whacky and wonderful world of Muggaz - i tend to be having too much fun these days, and often cannot remember moments due to debauchery - its time the internet repayed my loyalty by recording my antics.
State before Self?
Published on September 1, 2004 By Muggaz In Politics
The fervour of the Olympics have died down, the patriotism of those countries that did well have not. Over the last few days, I have no doubt that I love my country, and the reasons I love my country are for all to see – however there are plenty of reasons why I should always question those that lead my country, and I will refuse to be blinded by patriotism.

Collectively, Australia is a spirited nation, depicted by the surf, sun and sand – laid back and care free, however we have the dark spectre of our colonial past, with various act’s committed by previous governments that should be, and are, held in contempt. The thing I love about Australia is that we can admit these grievances occurred, and as a nation, we are always moving forward. While cooperatively we are interested in the development of our nation, there will always be that sense of self which is evident in any western culture – self improvement and individualism, personal development, no matter your class, creed, or race.

This brings me to my next point. It’s a big one, and certainly open to interpretation, as the written word always is – my greif is with the P-P-P-Patriot act of the United States of America. Traditionally, I would argue when it comes to patriotism, no one loves their country more than the average American citizen. Australians love their country, but you don’t see flags posted out the front of every second house, and we don’t have figures or gimmicks if you will, like Uncle Sam – well, the boxing Kangaroo can be classed as a gimmick, but the boxing Kangaroo doesn’t need YOU for war – if you know what I mean.

The Patriot act walks all over everything Americans hold dear about their great country – home of the brave and land of the ‘free.’ From the moment an American is born, they are watched by the hawks, or bald eagles, whichever you want to say, I know it’s easy from the outside looking in, but the whole notion of American patriotism appears very authoritarian to me – a state before self if you will.

I am fortunate to know many Americans, some I hold dear, and some not so dear, but the simple fact of the matter is, in America’s eyes, the Patriot act is a good thing because essentially it was created to protect civilians from horrific events such as 9/11 – this tells me a lot about the average American – as long as their personal rights aren’t infringed upon, they don’t really care about the rights of others.

Americans are always having cracks at the French for their justice system, cheesy odours, whatever. In France, you are guilty until proven innocent. The USA is held in high esteem for the free and choice filled image it conveys, however, the rights and freedoms that so many US troops are dying for are being infringed upon with this Patriot act – suspicion should not be enough to invoke the act, hence rendering the liberties Americans hold dear useless.

America is regarded as the leader of the free world, this was true to me before the Patriot act, however, now I am not so sure. With the state before self ideology, the general American is happy with the Patriot act – the average American has nothing to hide from the government, besides, it would be futile as the government has been watching since birth anyway – immigrants come to America for the right to be treated as a normal person, they take American citizenship so they too can enjoy the rights Americans ‘enjoy’. These rights no longer seem attractive.

The Americans aren’t entirely to blame for the Patriot act though – it’s unfortunate that people like the 9/11 hijackers utilised these civil liberties, and used them to spit in the face of America – but when America takes these liberties away based on suspicion, the entire American value system is brought into question. It’s ironic that it is called the patriot act – Americans are patriotic because their country is great – there are only a few countries in the world where you can make yourself with hard work, where you have the liberties to do and say what you want – America is one of these countries, or was one of these countries, until they were attacked because of the very values they are destroying.

Its hard for me to see where America will head towards in the next few years – what their social conscience will say in the back of their heads, based on what I know of America, granted, it may be not so much, though, I do see Americans following their commander and chief just because of the office he represents. It is my honest opinion that America has a problem with personal integrity going out the window because the president says it’s ok – respect the office, not the man, all that kind of talk. The president of the United States of America should command tremendous respect – when the office represents traditional American values of the family and fair go.

Maybe if Australia was attacked in the same fashion, our government would try to try and pass a similar act through our senate, however, I believe such an act would not get of the ground based on the traditional Australian values of giving everyone a fair chance, and you truly are innocent until proven guilty. Australians need to protect their interests by maintaining our national identity, and to maintain out national identity, we need to be consistent with our personal identities – Australia is a beautiful and great country, but my integrity will always come before my countries, and hopefully that holds true for our population, we wont be blindly led by the red white and blue of any flag, state before self sounds like a policy from authoritarian China – there are bad people everywhere in the world, but when you stop trusting the good on their account, it’s an inevitable decline in all that countries like America are perceived to represent.

BAM!!!

Comments (Page 3)
7 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Sep 03, 2004
To answer some questions about European rights:

- All EU countries have the European court of Justice as the upmost court inn the land. This court can rule as illegal ANY national law whioch contravenes the treaties that the EU governments have signed. Most important of these is the European convention on human rights.

- These rights are gauranteed: The right to life; Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment; Freedom from forced labour or slavery; The right to Liberty and to a Fair trial; Freedom from facing retrospective crimes or penalties; A Right to Privacy; Freedom of conscience; Freedom of expression; Freedom of assembly; The right to marriage and family; and Freedom from discrimination.


The specific case of the increased terrorism and working with the US on dealing with it is addressed in the following interesting EU report

http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fsj/rights/network/obs_thematique_en.pdf

Paul.
on Sep 03, 2004
When the police start rounding up people on bogus terrorist charges and holding them let me know.


The police haven't started, but what else is Guantanamo Bay? There were hundreds of presumably innocent people released from there recently without charge. Same with Abu Ghraib. Just because it's in the colonies doesn't mean it's not an indication of the central government's views.
on Sep 03, 2004
I still go back to the fact that any of the country's listed above have National Security Policies, which some don't know the kind of power that it has. Before I hear more about well that would never happen here, etc. what kind of power does your National Security Agency have, it may suprise you.

Guantanamo Bay

Do we know something about the differences between a War Criminal and a Prisoner of War, there are big differences, it is very surpising what people can do just because of the difference.
on Sep 03, 2004
Hate to tell you all who think you have privacy, agencies, such as FBI, CIA, NSA, (sorry don't know their world counterparts) do work in the area of National Security, and have had this kind of power since at least World War 2, if you are just waking up to the fact that a Democracy can be more totalitarian than a Totalitarian regime in some aspects (NSK State stresses this covertly), than damn where has your head been?

The difference is that now those acts are being publicly tested. If the populace fails this litmus test by saying "fine", then that clinches the deal as to how government and citizens' relations will stand in regards to civil liberties. It's one thing if someone stabs you in the back, you can't really see that coming, it's another thing when they tell you they are going to hurt you first. Who wants to concede? Who wants to openly concede to fascism and totalitarianism? Ask your neighbor who is too busy drinking a six pack, watching the game, and boasting of who we're going to bomb next.
on Sep 03, 2004
we're sweating the Patriot Act? An act that expires,


I thought that was extended further than the 4 years planned for it?
on Sep 03, 2004
FBI uses Patriot Act (which is supposed to be for fighting terrorism, you'll recall) to bust Vegas strip club operators:
www.msnbc.msn.com

A good piece from the Sacramento Bee about money-laundering and other abuses of the Patriot Act:
www.sacbee.com

FBI uses Patriot act to accuse artists of bioterrorism, ends up charging them with mail fraud:
www.caedefensefund.org

The Patriot Act itself makes it harder to know that your rights are being violated:
www.commondreams.org

People can challenge Patriot Act provisions (if they can get into the courtroom):
seattletimes.nwsource.com

CIA is spying on US Citizens:
aclu.org

"Foes of Patriot act fear harm to honest citizens":
newsmax.com
which includes a bit about "bumping someone on the head with a picket sign" could be interpreted as domestic terrorism.
on Sep 03, 2004
we're sweating the Patriot Act? An act that expires,

An act Ashcroft urged lawmakers to renew and an act that is being talked about as "needing" a follow up bill to reinforce it's already overbearing strength.
on Sep 03, 2004
The Patriot act comes up for renewal, and Bush has said he wants to expand it. With a Republican Congress he will get what he wants. Read it. The Intell agency's don't even need probable cause. There is NO, I repeat NO oversight of their operations. They can come in and get any records they want because they issue their own warrants with no judge involved. No record is required of their operations. Not only can they get your records, but they can put a gag order on the source of those records so you cannot find out they have been taken.
My wife is from the Philippines. Her nephew came to the US six years ago and finished his college education. Three years ago he graduated with honors, but at a graduation party he had a couple beers. He got pulled over and tested at 0.09. At the time the limit was 0.1, but the cop gave him a DUI anyway. He paid his fine, did his community service and went about his life. Two months ago the INS showed up at his door and arrested him as an undesirable. One month ago he was dropped off at Clark Airfield in the Philippines with no money, and none of his possessions. All this was done under the auspices of the Patriot Act. I gues if you can't catch spies, terrorists, or illegal aliens you just have to go for the easy ones.
Ask yourself, if this act is so good, and so efficient, how did a carreer spy for Isreal work in the Department of Defense so long.
This whole thing reminds of the stories of Germany in the Thirties as personal freedoms were gradually stripped until nothing was left.
on Sep 03, 2004

I found Cit's links quite compelling (Good job on that).

That said, since we live in a democracy, if the people don't like the Patriot Act, they can get rid of it, can't they?

In addition, there is the US Constitution which provides gaurantees to our liberties.  My point is, it seems a bit strange to get hysterical on teh Patriot Act when we have this many checks and balances in place to ensure our freedoms are protected.

on Sep 03, 2004
Draginol you miss the point. There are NO checks and balances where the Patriot Act is concerned. There is NO oversight, and NO accountability. That is what is wrong with it. These agencies have free reign under a cloak of secrecy. Kinda like the Gestapo.
on Sep 03, 2004
Much like the ATF.
on Sep 03, 2004
These agencies have free reign under a cloak of secrecy.


No, they have to report what they are doing. Not immediately, but it does have to be reported. For example, last I heard there were 0 searches of library records using the Patriot Act.

Apparently, cops in Australia can search your house without a warrant:

Searches of Places without a Search Warrant

The police have wide powers of search and seizure in respect of private dwellings and business premises under the Drugs Misuse Act. An officer may enter a place and search without a search warrant, if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that either:

evidence of a drug offence; or
anything liable to forfeiture
is in the place, or in the possession of a person in, or about the place, and it will be concealed or destroyed unless the place is immediately entered and searched.


Link
on Sep 03, 2004
Not immediately, but it does have to be reported. For example, last I heard there were 0 searches of library records using the Patriot Act.


And when did you hear that, and through what date was the report? If you get a report at the start of 2005 covering 2003, that's pretty damn lame.

if the people don't like the Patriot Act, they can get rid of it, can't they?


Well, no. We can tell our senators and representatives that they should get rid of it, and hope that they actually follow through on that without being waylaid by special interests and National Security lobbyists and so forth.
More likely we can expect a Patriot II that is slightly watered down in some aspects (like library records, since it is supposedly not very useful and generates a lot of negative press) and significantly beefed up in others (like the CIA getting information on US citizens' activities from the FBI so that they can track everyone who protested at the RNC, for example). Remember, the main reason that the CIA's powers were hamstrung back in the 70's was because they were improperly using their resources to keep tabs on "undesirable" US citizens such as Martin Luther King et al. Handing all sorts of powers back to them will produce the same result eventually. Maybe next year, maybe 2020, but why set yourself up for that?
on Sep 03, 2004
Patriot Act should be revised, I think I said this when I first posted a reply, if I hadn't than I re-concede the point.

Just what I find so particularly annoying is people scammering because of the fact that Government has the power to do this and that, when they so woefully forget that the Government (any Democratic Government in the World) can do anything to you in the name of National Security, yes we should reign in those FBI hooligans before they get even rowdier, and I think it is going to take some pressure from both sides to reform as it will never go away, come on the few things that get passed where the government gets more control never goes away, just common sense (I see Furry Little Hamsters.)

Of course, along with the revision they should put in some punishments for the agency if it disobeys which could be incentive to obey the revisions.
on Sep 03, 2004
Apparently, cops in Australia can search your house without a warrant:


That's true, and I can also be detained without reason or cause for up to a week and be forbidden to speak about it or risk breaching various Secrecy Acts - (one of the side results of the Australian anti-terror leglislation). However neither holds up particularly well when argued in court. The first because "reasonable suspicion" is very difficult to prove - if they find nothing then you can sue in the civil courts for all sorts of things.

The anti-terror legislation is draconian and should be repealed. If someone was imprisoned though and decided to speak about their experiences I think they wouldn't be charged - the High Court would be likely to claim that the anti-terror act is in opposition to common law and the Constitution and has to be repealed, so it won't be risked.
7 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last