I´m very interested in politics, domestic and internationally. And i am very curious what you who live in the US think about “The patriot act”. I don´t know much about it, only what the news reports here in Sweden.
Excuse me for bad grammar or spelling…
Which part? If I remember correctly it is over 10,000 pages of law, split over 10 different parts.
I think the consensus of Americans will be that some of the protections it offers are legitimate and necessary, and others are a bit more compromising. Me personally, I have nothing to hide.
Remember, no matter what they say now, only one Senator (Feingold I think) voted against it.
After enormous posturing and bragging about killing the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, it was eventually reauthorized with three inconsequential changes by a large, bipartisian majority, as predicted. It is so innocuous, with exactly zero examples of abuse so far, that even the ACLU dropped its lawsuit.
I am not familiar with personal freedoms in Sweden, but I will wager we have far stronger protections in the United States.
If you want to get beyond the headlines, which is probably all you get in Sweden, to the specifics, we can probably be more helpful.
**I am not familiar with personal freedoms in Sweden, but I will wager we have far stronger protections in the United States. **
Could you give an example of where personal freedoms are stronger in the U.S than in places like Western Europe, Canada or Australia?
I often hear people say we have the most personal freedom, but I’m not sure what they mean. I can’t think of a single personal freedom we have, that other free countries do not share.
"I often hear people say we have the most personal freedom, but I’m not sure what they mean. I can’t think of a single personal freedom we have, that other free countries do not share. "
Really? The right to bear arms? Anyway, I think it’s the extent of our rights that may separate. For instance, we recently discussed countries that have laws banning you from claiming the Holocaust didn’t happen. They may have free speech to an extent, but that extent might be lesser in some countries than it is here.
By far the most important is our First Amendment. I know of nothing like it elsewhere.
In the US you can’t have things like putting people in jail for denying the Holocaust (Germany was the recent case, I think) or forbiding students to wear a crucifix (France), or forbidding reporting on political corruption hearings (Canada).
The Second Amendment doesn’t have a competitor in the Western world to my knowledge either. I don’t think we will have bus terrorism incidents like they do in France anytime soon. The perps would likely get shot, and they know it.
I can’t comment on Australia. They do really well too, but I think it is by law and tradition and common sense, not engraved into their Constitution.
I think it’s the extent of our rights that may separate.
As much as we have the first amendment and other freedoms, here is what I have noticed as a comparison between living in the U.S and Canada.
In the U.S, the personal freedoms to say things are being eroded. An example is Merry Christmas, and the silliness that goes along with that. The politically correct crowd are eroding the freedoms and I didn’t see that in Canada or in many other countries I have lived in. In the U.S., more and more, you have the Freedom of Speech, as long as it is politically correct.
There are also limits due to the ever increasing lawsuits. If you make hot coffee and someone spills it, you will be sued. Toy manufacturers are restricted in what they can sell, if there is even a slightly remote chance of causing injury. I think those things restrict personal freedoms.
We may be protected by the Constitution, but the real life personal restrictions seem much higher here than in many countries.
By far the most important is our First Amendment. I know of nothing like it elsewhere.
In the US you can’t have things like putting people in jail for denying the Holocaust (Germany was the recent case, I think) or forbiding students to wear a crucifix (France), or forbidding reporting on political corruption hearings (Canada).
Art since this thread is primarily to educate the non-Americans amongst could you outline what the firts and second amendments are please?
Sorry.
First Amendment provides for freedom of the Press, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. These freedoms are interpreted very broadly, such that all manner of laws are overturned to protect these freedoms. Pass a law mandating any of the above described actions and you will be met with an immediate and successful lawsuit to overturn the law.
Second Amendment provides for the freedom to bear arms, which is interpreted rather narrowly, but still provides or at least enables some rights in this area.
THanks, Art. I am not so sure that the first amendment is as unique as you suggest, although without getting into a prolonged debate I am glad we don’t have the second amendment in this country.
I was a little surprised by your previous comment about Australia’s laws being " tradition and common sense, not engraved into their Constitution" as I thought tradition and common sense are a sound basis for laws.
“I was a little surprised by your previous comment about Australia’s laws being " tradition and common sense, not engraved into their Constitution” as I thought tradition and common sense are a sound basis for laws."
LOL at this one. You are referring to here on planet Earth, right?
I also made very clear that I am not familiar with the legal situation there, really at all. Seems I went ahead and said too much anyway.
You don’t even have a Constitution in England. As I understand, there is no concept at all of a law being unconstitutional at all. I never understood how that could work well, but I guess it has worked passably well over the last 950 years.
Yep, do have and don’t need a constitution. Common sense and tradition with moral standards (generally, there are always exceptions seems to have work pretty well for inexcess of a thousand years.
In Planet England of course. Thanks for sharing.
Laughing again and nailed again.
I think that approach would only work in England, probably the home of common sense and certainly the home of tradition.
Australia has some extremely harsh laws regarding terror suspects, comprising something called the ASIO laws. You can be brought in, questioned, your house searched, and then you are not allowed to tell anyone. If a journalist reports on it, they can be imprisoned. Let’s put it this way, in Australia, if Jose Padilla was subject to such restrictions, and a journalist or family member spoke about the mere fact that he was incarcerated, they would soon follow.
Glad the US isn’t at that point, yet.
Australia has some extremely harsh laws regarding terror suspects
That must make Kangaroo happy.
Thanks for the information. It’s always nice to learn about how other countries operate.
Jocke, it’s a tough question to answer - in part because it takes a lot to know where the patriot act ends and other administration policies begin. There current administration has had a pretty systematic policy of giving more leeway to enforcement agents, and less opportunity to seek redress against government excess (some real, some not). But without reading the act itself, it’s hard to say what gov’t policies come from the patriot act. So while it seems that objections ot illegal wiretapping are fairly widespread, I don’t think that’s in the act; same with extraordinary rendition. People are pretty split on Guantanamo. I don’t think that there’s a lot of support for the ability to check people’s library borrowing habits.
In general, like I said, most people (myself included) see a pattern of overall increase of gov’t power & lack of transparency, w/out knowing which parts are actually in the patriot act.
OTOH, from my perspective, it’s hard to see teh excesses of the current situation - from Abu Grhaib to that the warrantless wiretaps to the various legal justifications for torture - and not say “not so fast” on the patriot act.
I also think that a lot of politicians, both democrats and more libertarian republicans, are tactically wrong to softpedal their opposition to the erosion of civil liberties.
-charles
In the US, women have to wear tops when they sun bath…
This obviously shows that France is far ahead in terms of individual liberties.
Art since this thread is primarily to educate the non-Americans amongst could you outline what the firts and second amendments are please?
Here’s a link to the actual text of the Bill of Rights…
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
I’m curious, in general what are the gun laws in England? There must be some method of permitting them, otherwise how could you have a decent fox hunt?
Or is it that the fundamental difference is that in England, the gov’t permits ownership of (certain) guns, but has the right by law to rescind that permission, while here in the states, removing the right to own guns would require an Amendment?
Thanks, TD. I will save that for my rest day.
" In the US, women have to wear tops when they sun bath…
This obviously shows that France is far ahead in terms of individual liberties."
I know when I have been had, Francois.