Today's topic brilliantly illustrates this blog's title, Parodies Lost. I was going to write a satire based on a story in Monday's New York Times, which reports that experts are "baffled" by the steady decline in major crime, the lowest rate in 40 years. Given the extent of the recession and the number of unemployed, experts say we should be seeing crime rates rising like the Mississippi River but without the expert help of the Army Corps of Engineers.
As I read the article, it occurred to me that one explanation was missing: our basic freedoms as defined by the Bill of Rights have been bludgeoned by the Patriot Act, passed in panic after 9/ll. Great, I thought, I can do a satiric piece about cops arresting people without warrents, holding them incognito, and arresting people who question why they arrested the first batch of people, if you follow my drift.
The problem is that, given our distorted reality, you can't exaggerate enough to get a good parody when reality is so far beyond bizarre that it makes Lady Gaga look normal. 
So, I decided to play this one straight. For years I've been railing to anyone who'll listen--a rapidly dwindling number--that our basic rights are being eroded, shredded, shrivelled, and mangled, but like the meek lambs we truly are, we "baa" and go back to eating grass and expelling methane. My conservative friends say, "hey, it'll never happen to me;" my liberal friends shake their heads and say "ain't it awful"...and go back to MSNBC for their nightly hysteria fix.
A Web site I stumbled upon did a lot of the work for me and makes it clear that the constitutionally destructive nature of the Patriot Act is probably responsible for some of the bewildering drop in crime. The site is Concerned Citizens Against the Patriot Act. Their analysis of the Patriot Act's violations of Amendments I, IV, and VI of the Bill of Rights is offered verbatim.
Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks:
Freedom of association: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.
Freedom of information: The government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public-records requests. "Sensitive" information has been removed from government Web sites.
Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
Right to legal representation: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. "Enemy combatants" have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.
Other issues, such as the widespread abuse of warrentless wiretaps, the spreading use of video cameras throughout major metropolitan areas, and the insertion of listening devices into public restroom toilets have been widely discussed elsewhere (which explains why this gentlemen has chosen a different approach.)
The point is that with all the goodies offered to the law enforcement folk by the Patriot Act and various Supreme Court dismantlings of civil liberties, it's a no brainer that it's easier to catch criminals and even that potential criminals may be thinking twice before acting out in the new 24-hour-a-day broad daylight we call the United States of America.
There's no question about whether the government needed to do a better job with better tools in chasing down terrorists after 9/11. However, there are huge questions about whether the Patriot Act reminds one of, say, attacking two countries to get one relatively small collection of bad guys...hint, hint.
Experts may be baffled about the crimes rates, but I'm baffled by the silence.
Why aren't conservatives outraged? The police and feds can search your property without letting you know. They can, with easily obtained National Security Letters, not only get your medical, dental, library, and gambling records, the people who have to give up that information can't tell anyone about it, although recent amendments have made it possible for them to consult with a lawyer--one year after the fact. Of course, they can't do that if the feds play the national security card. According to a report from the Justice Department’s Inspector General in March 2007, the FBI has issued about thirty thousand letters per year and one hundred forty three thousand requests for information through National Security Letters from 2003 to 2005 alone. Additionally, the report found that the Bureau had often used the letters improperly and sometimes illegally.
Here are all the extreme righties screaming about our socialist, Muslim president who's destroying all things American, waving their pristine copies of the constitution they could sell on Amazon at full price, yet strangely silent in the face of very real threats to the foundation of American democracy.
But I digress. Yes, it's great we have less crime. I'm all for not getting mugged, robbed, or murdered. But I wonder about the price we're paying for our increased safety.
In Jameson Veritas
Comments