tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4530463554584181774.post1699227029461244841..comments2023-05-17T07:53:18.995-04:00Comments on Sycamore Three: The Bill of Rights Eviscerated -- What Now?Robert Heidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07622336432907413984noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4530463554584181774.post-50919431764199135602011-12-11T09:03:13.187-05:002011-12-11T09:03:13.187-05:00Thank you, Anonymous.
Your distinction between &q...Thank you, Anonymous.<br /><br />Your distinction between "freedom and rights" is a good one, and at some point I will revise the post in light of your comments. I wrote this as a stream of consciousness type of thing, so it wasn't really all that coherent.<br /><br />While the bill will likely be vetoed as it stands now, because it is tied to so many other things, my guess is that some sort of compromise will be worked out and it will pass anyway. I note that our president has promised to veto it NOT because it erases what's left of the Bill of Rights, but because it doesn't go far enough, i.e. it prevents the government from prosecuting terrorists more effectively.<br /><br />The administration may really be opposed to it on civil liberties grounds, but is using another reason publicly for fear of being accused of weakness in an election season. I'm willing to grant that.<br /><br />Besides that, the power given to the American government under this legislation has in essence already been claimed by the government, just not in an official "act of Congress" sort of way. Recall that President Obama acted to execute two American citizens without trial or charges in a foreign country, which has now set a precedent that will be hard to reverse for future administrations.<br /><br />Thank you again for your comments, Anonymous.Ben Carmackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689868508463357958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4530463554584181774.post-57729078005115206262011-12-10T23:20:03.296-05:002011-12-10T23:20:03.296-05:00Firstly, excellent post. Solid concepts and impres...Firstly, excellent post. Solid concepts and impressive writing.<br /><br />However, there are a couple specifics which might warrant reconsideration. Firstly, you don't seem to make a distinction between "freedom" and "rights," which seems to me like a mistake. Freedom (at least physical freedom) CAN be taken away. One could argue that mental freedom cannot be taken away, but that's tangential to the point. Freedom -- the ability to move about wherever you want or even the simple ability to live -- can most definitely be lost. <br /><br />The right to that freedom, on the other hand, is intrinsic to our humanity and cannot be separated from it. Human/natural rights are on a more intangible plain than physical freedom. So one must be careful when using the two terms (rights and freedom) interchangeably. <br /><br />The logical consequence of that difference is that a soldier can be thanked for protecting our freedom. A soldier, or a government, can also be thanked for "giving" us our freedom. To thank a soldier for protecting freedom from outside forces is always a good thing. To thank our government for GIVING us our freedom should never be necessary, as freedom is a natural right, and can give the impression that the freedom given is a privilege instead of a right. Thus, thanking a government for "giving" freedom should never occur. I think that's what you were driving at, but your terminology got confusing, at least for me.<br /><br />Secondly, if I recall correctly, the Obama administration has vowed to veto the bill, should it reach the President's desk. So there's still some hope that it won't be passed...<br /><br />But, like I said, the concepts are sound and the concerns certainly hold a lot of precedence. It's a road we are slowly but surely progressing down. I hope more people will read this article and open their eyes to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com