Rabbi,
Cordex, you seem to know an awful lot about what would happen in hypothetical situations. And you have amazing knowledge of what it is in every politician's mind.
Why thank you.
But I can't help thinking that you are just projecting your world-view, that politicians' main goal in life is to deny you personally your liberties, onto the situation.
Of course theft of my personal liberty is not their main goal, but neither is protecting that liberty. I'm sure some of them are even sincere in believing they are working for the good of the nation and their constituents. That said, I do not see things trending towards increased personal liberty on a Federal level. Whether it bothers you or not, do you?
There have been emergency measures enacted for probably every major war we have fought. All or most of them were repealed afterwards. Why will this be different?
For two reasons.
First, I don't believe the War on Terror is a war that
can be won in the conventional sense. Like the War on Drugs, or the War on Crime it is a war that is not fought against a finite number of defeatable enemies. Of course that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be fought, simply that laws passed in support of such a War are likely going to be around for a very, very long time.
Second, few of these laws are being sold to us as temporary measures - even "for the duration". Rather they're being billed as provisions necessary for the survival of our nation in modern times.
Additionally, I'm not so proud of all of the temporary emergency measures passed during previous major wars.
It is entirely possible that I'm wrong. If terrorists were somehow defeated, perhaps existing laws would be repealed. Then again, we've still got laws on the books intended to combat Prohibition-era mafia violence that were considered too valuable for the government to give up.
Where I have a problem with the laws being passed are where they have little to nothing to do with the war effort or undermine the freedom of law-abiding members of our society. I do not believe that all the laws passed in the name of the War on Terror are useful, sufficiently related, necessary or appropriate. If we disagree on this, your opinion of the state of things with regards to a single party controlling the Legislative and Executive branches would, of course, be different.
Fistful,
That's what I mean about mixing issues. In recognizing that war-time administrations must be able to act decisively, I am in no way gainsaying the general principle that government should have limited powers. I'm only recognizing what's necessary for military success.
Fair enough. However, the same structure that allows for decisive military action also allows for significant abuse. Additionally, while the military aspect is vital, it is not the only concern.
Another issue you're mixing in here is your apparent problem with the phrase "war on terror." It's only a short-hand way of saying that we're fighting terrorist organizations and their supporters and sympathizers.
I understand that. But even utter elimination of existing terrorist organizations, supporters and sympathizers (something we are not going to do militarily) does not eliminate Terror. I don't have a problem with calling it a War on Terror, but chances are good that because of the nature of the fight, laws passed in support of that war are going to stick around - whether they be good or bad.
How about when they're too busy grappling with each other to fight a war properly? Then we get an Iraq or a VietNam. The country is very divided, and the Republican Party is certainly not ruling Congress with an iron fist. Yet I am willing to bet you can give me a long list of the bad laws that have been passed recently.
I'm not convinced that the problems in Iraq are caused entirely by domestic squabbles.
Fistful, the Republican party is not pure evil in my book. Their current direction is just ... a bit different, shall we say, from their traditional platform. Indeed, it seemed to me that as soon as they no longer had to worry about a Democrat in the Presidency, their objections to spending money willy nilly on a Federal level and big, bloated government just disappeared.