Liberals
need closure on bill
Jason
Garthoffner
Last
weekend Al Gore gave a speech attacking
the Bush administration and the USA Patriot
Act saying "they have taken us much
farther down the road toward an intrusive,
big brother-style government, toward the
dangers prophesized by George Orwell in
his book 1984."
This
point was especially highlighted to be true
when Gore's anti-Bush diatribe was received
with a standing ovation from 3,000 people
and not one of them was arrested.
Gore's
pitiful attempt to remain relevant is apparent
as this address was, ironically, given at
an event sponsored by the liberal activist
group MoveOn.org. Devoid of any original
thought he parrots the usual liberal rhetoric
that groups such as MoveOn and the American
Civil Liberties Union spew against the Bush
administration.
For
all their carping about the Patriot Act
ask them to give just one line from the
bill that specifically threatens civil rights
instead of using "big brother"
scare tactics. They won't be able to do
it. These people are counting on you not
finding out what is really in the bill.
If
I had a dollar for every liberal that protested
the Patriot Act and actually read the law
or any analysis of it, I would be broke.
The
bill does make efforts to protect against
abuses. A court order is required for any
search warrant for any kind of records or
wiretapping against a person. The government
must still make a case to a judge that the
suspect may engage in terrorist activities
before any such warrant is approved. If
a person feels their rights have been violated
a claim can be made against the U.S. government
for no less than $10,000 if a violation
is found (no such monetary claim was available
before). The most noteworthy safeguard that
nobody has bothered to mention is the expanded
powers of the bill sunset, or expire, on
Dec. 31, 2005.
You
won't hear about any of this in the ads
liberal groups take out on radio, television,
and newspapers calling the Bush administration
the fourth reich. It has not occurred to
liberals wailing about the loss of their
civil rights that if the Patriot Act really
took away the rights they say it does they
would be rotting in jail right now. Instead
they are winning Oscars (Michael Moore)
and getting paid to tell us about the mythical
loss of these rights (Gore).
Instead of spending millions of dollars
on the real "big brother" campaign
that is bashing the Bush administration,
liberals should be taking out ads against
themselves. For all their posturing, it
was Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, who
signed the executive order imprisoning more
than 100,000 Japanese people during World
War II. It did not matter if they were guilty
of anything, of if they were even American
citizens. The national ACLU actually supported
the action (one case challenging the internment
was sponsored by one chapter of the organization
without the national leaderships approval).
Flash
forward sixty years later the same party
and same organizations are now railing on
the Bush administration for the same types
of things. Only this time it's foreign-nationals
engaging in combat against the United States.
being imprisoned instead of citizens guilty
of nothing. The 766 people detained by Ashcroft
after Sept. 11 for immigration violations
led to 489 deportations (because of the
violations) and 100 were convicted for terrorism
related offenses. This Orwellian tragedy
becomes more apparently transparent when
one considers this is .7 percent of the
number of detainees held for no reason under
FDR.
It's
puzzling how Gore and the liberals are so
adamantly against policies historically
favored by their kind. Is it jealousy that
the Republicans are actually detaining the
right people?
Poor
Orwell is probably turning in his grave
from all the garbage the left has been spewing
in his name, arrogantly thinking he would
stand with them. There must be confusion
in the anti-Bush "peace" movement
about whose side he would take in this war
on terror. Perhaps a statement he made about
pacifists during World War II will solve
the mystery:
"Since pacifists have more freedom
of action in countries where traces of democracy
survive, pacifism can act more effectively
against democracy than for it. Objectively,
the pacifist is pro-Nazi."
It's time liberals move on from the Orwellian
argument.
Jason
Garthoffner is an art major at Cal State
Long Beach and can be reached at JasD1899@aol.com.
|
