Is it possible for an anti-terrorism act to not be unconstitutional?

[Against ME]

As the PATRIOT act begins to Wane, There's ten more that are just as bad to take it's place. The senate/house is just starting to see the motley act for what it is, but I fear it will take 3 years for them to see what the other bills and acts that they are passing are. The fact is that most anti-terroirsm bills will be a violation of someone's rights, and it seems the our government doesn't care.

The latest one, that I found out about at www.truthout.org editorials insues someone getting arested for wearing face paint, and refusing to take it off. It also sets up tibunals, and we all know how fair they are.

When will the Government see that security is impossible, and our Democracy gave up some security for freedom. When will they see that we value our freedom over our security? When will they stop trying to make our country safe, and achieving nothing but infringment on our rights?

[Christian73]

1. It's totally outrageous

BushCo. is chopping away at the civil liberties that weren't removed through the PATRIOT Act in the most cynical way.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Yeah, well...

This has always been a problem-- long before terrorism was the issue.

Balancing security and individual rights is a problem since they are often in direct conflict. Just look at the struggles every industrialized country has had over rules of evidence, search and seizure, preventive detention... Adding foreign agents into the mix just adds another layer of complexity when making the rules.

Although there's a lot of gasbagging going on, I don't think we as a country really have had a serious and open debate about just how far we are willing to go for security. We have been terrorized by the news of serial rapists, snipers, mad bombers, and suicidal Arabs on top of the general run of conmen, muggers, gangbangers, and burglars, and that fear seems to run the debate.

We've seen politicians jump on any idiotic plan to hang the bastards lest they be called soft on crime/terrorism/whatever in the next election, but we rarely see sane commentary or debate on just how to best balance our national and personal security and our inherent and historic freedoms. We also see little debate on whether or not any of these harebrained schemes actually work.

We are taking off our shoes and losing our nail clippers and corkscrews at airports, and allowing government agents to use infrared scanning and other gadgets to see if we are growing pot in our basements, or taking it up the ass. OK that last one finally got axed by the Supremes, but no one is out there seriously questioning this stuff.