Top prosecutor warns against growing state power

re: Re:Here's a thought...

"You must not be paying any attention to the news. The Home of Free and the Land of the Brave is about to be taken hostage by socialism that's been creeping in the back door for the past 20 years. And with it comes all of the requisite censorship and limitation of civil liberties.As it is right now, Americans can't publish opinions that dissent with Obama without enduring accusations of racism."

My god.

Do you realise that all of the communistic (Stalinist) legislation has been at the explicit wishes (via Presidential Fiat if necessary) by GWB?

HE is the socialist.

He knows better than you whether you need to know what the government is doing to you.

He knows better than you whether there is a risk.

He knows better than you whether you can be considered safe to fly.

He knows better than you where your taxes can be spent and when you'll have to be taxed more.

@Graham Wilson

"I wonder when bin Laden was congratulating himself over 9/11 whether he had the foresight to know he had already won the greater war."

bin Laden has denied he did it. Given he and his family were such good friends with the Bush's and that he has since had to go into hiding REAL deep under cover, this has some evidence to support its veracity.

Al Quaeda didn't exist. It was a cover name for several groups of "terrorists". Now they exist because of the overreaction in 9/11 (where Shrub said that America would not stand for terrorism against them. HEY! WHERE WERE YOU IN THE 80's??? Oh, yeah, supporting Gerry Adams...).

@Mark re @Graham Wilson

(...So this is a very late reply. But I felt compelled to reply to Mark.)

.

I have always regretted not having the ability to write as do luminaries such as H. L. Mencken or Hunter S. Thompson who, in a single sentence, can express tremendous outrage and proffer a solution, yet still convey it to readers with crystal clarity.

The following is too long, but....

"bin Laden has denied he did it. Given he and his family were such good friends with the Bush's and that he has since had to go into hiding REAL deep under cover, this has some evidence to support its veracity.

Al Quaeda didn't exist. It was a cover name for several groups of "terrorists". Now they exist because of the overreaction in 9/11 (where Shrub said that America would not stand for terrorism against them."

Agreed. Here, I used 'bin Laden' as a broad-brushed metaphor or symbol for those responsible.

Also, whilst not disagreeing with your point, mine was that increased State control over the citizenry in times of threat usually results in a 'bull in a china shop' approach, it's not very effective and can have negative outcomes for society. The fabric that underpins society is fragile and is easily damaged; protecting it requires considerable care and sophistication--a smart approach rather than brute force.

"HEY! WHERE WERE YOU IN THE 80's??? Oh, yeah, supporting Gerry Adams...)."

I assume you mean by this comment that I would have had us all sit back and allowed the outrages by the IRA to go unchecked. Certainly not, many innocent people were hurt or killed and society has full right to defend itself. Nevertheless, with respect to the Northern Ireland problem, the State's response (which supposedly represents its citizens' interest) should have been more cautionary and above reproach. In hindsight, it did a pretty woeful job: the 'war' went on far too long with lots of counterproductive rhetoric and little effective negotiations, lots of dead and injustices, such those committed against the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four, not only undermined citizens' faith and confidence in the State but it confirmed in the enemy's eyes that the State was essentially disingenuous.

Perhaps I should have mentioned in my last post [1] that in certain circumstances I believe the State should use surveillance to protect its citizens but not as a first-line, default method of investigation as it is increasingly becoming. As electronic surveillance is extremely easy for the State to conduct and increasingly so, there is an almost overwhelming temptation for the State to give itself unlimited powers to do so (as it is intending to do with Data Communications Act).

Given the very real dangers that surveillance poses to personal privacy and safety of citizens, with even potential to undermine democracy [2] itself, undertaking surveillance should never be an easy option for the State, it should only go down this route after extremely rigorous and independent oversighting by those directly affected--the citizens themselves.

Electronic surveillance is now such an all-powerful all-pervasive tool it has the potential to directly alter the existing balance of power between state and citizens - to turn the State from servant into 'enemy'. Consequently, for their own safety, citizens need independently monitor and administer its use through an authoritative and transparent arm of government as the judiciary administers laws of the State. In a process similar to the separation of powers, executive government (and its enforcers, police, monitoring agencies etc.) should be directly accountable to others whose primary brief would be to protect citizens, uphold basic freedoms and democratic tenets whenever surveillance is used.

Perhaps by now readers are thinking I am putting an undue emphasis on one aspect of our governance--surveillance. Then I should point out that governments are much more likely to instigate and pass laws which increase their powers if it is easy to do so, even if expensive or unpopular (as is the proposed Data Communications Act). Governments often justify such laws in the name of safety, law enforcement, security etc., but in reality, they are little more than dictates that have had little or no public involvement during their drafting. Moreover, the propaganda or spin that surrounds them is often couched in motherhood statements that are hard to argue against and which assures them a swift passage through parliament.

A closer inspection often shows those who stand to gain the most from such laws are usually governments themselves along with already-privileged public-sector bureaucrats who will administer the provisions of such laws, for after all it is they who initially instigate them. The Data Communications Act, not only remove citizens' powers over privacy and undermines democratic principles but one assured outcome would be to confer better work conditions for these secret gnomes. Proving the hidden agenda would be nigh on impossible but you can bet one outcome of this proposed law will be to confer an 'affirmative action' status onto spooks. No longer will the bulk of them need to get their hands dirty with traditional, messy in-field investigations. In future, many will never have any need to take leave of their desks. Right, connotations of the Gilbertian line about 'sticking close to one's desk' come readily to mind.

An all-embracing electronic surveillance will make for lazy policing; lazy policing means bad law enforcement.

Those whose work involves protecting and securing the State takes several distinctive forms, generally the more arduous the job the less they are paid. Usually the military covers external threats, law enforcement: internal, and spying, data gathering and surveillance cover both internal and external threats. The military has (and always has had) the worst end of State security, especially the poor bloody infantry.

At the other extreme will be those who administer the Data Communications Act, they will be paid the highest, sit at their desks and never get their hands dirty...

...and never will they ever have to worry about whether a land mine will jump up in front of them and nuke their manhood.

---------------------------

[1] The previous post was a long and I'd have had to explain many caveats that I believe ought to cover covert surveillance to ensure that citizens are properly protected from State.

[2] Right, this sounds all very esoteric and impractical you might say. Perhaps it is, but as any thinking person would have to agree, Democracy is under more threat now than ever before. It is not just surveillance and increasing control of the citizenry by the State that is at issue, there are many others. For instance, erosion of one's vote through lobbying, vested and corporate interests influencing and biasing government processes, the covenant between the citizenry and government is being decoupled, citizens' increasing disrespect for their parliamentary representatives and the institution of government itself, and growing numbers of parliamentary representatives who have a Burkian determination NOT to represent their constituents or defend their wishes, and so on.