Has the war on terror eased the creation of a New Blacklist?

[Nietzsche]

Just some food for thought.

Security versus privacy has been a central theme since 9/11 "changed the world forever." Since it appears that the Patriot Act will be perpetually renewed by a fearmongering federal government, I wonder how similar the federal police apparatus is now to the days of McCarthy and J Edgar?

Is there any clear way to balance security and privacy/personal rights? Or is it inevitable that one will run roughshod over the other?

What is the ideal?

[Lord Zhang Ku]

I don't think it is as bad as the McCarthy era blacklist. It's not as if we are purposely investigating people to arrest people and making up evidence. However, the patriot's act was something that shouldn't have been renewed, but was because most people in Congress are still more afraid then they should be of a certain religious group. It's not like Muslims are being specifically targeted to arrested. Instead, they are just being investigated because they are followers of Islam. Personally, I'd ask the supreme court to rule against it.

[DimeBagHo]

I don't think it is as bad as the McCarthy era blacklist. It's not as if we are purposely investigating people to arrest people and making up evidence.

No one was arrested because of the McCarthy era blacklist either. The "blacklist" of that era was an informal list employed by movie studios to block known communists from working in the movie industry. There wasn't any evidence made up either. All of the blacklisted individuals had admitted to belonging to the (American) communist party, which was taking money and orders from the USSR.

McCarthy himself did make false allegations about government employees (mostly people in the state department) but that had nothing to do with the Hollywood blacklist, and no one was arrested or imprisoned over this either.

It's odd that people go on about the McCarthy era, when no one suffered anything worse than being asked a few questions under oath, but then totally forget the first Red Scare when 250,000 communists, socialists, and anarchists were actually arrested, imprisoned, or deported.

[Nietzsche]

No one was arrested because of the McCarthy era blacklist either. The "blacklist" of that era was an informal list employed by movie studios to block known communists from working in the movie industry. There wasn't any evidence made up either. All of the blacklisted individuals had admitted to belonging to the communist party, which was taking money and orders from the USSR.

McCarthy himself did make false allegations about government employees (mostly people in the state department) but that had nothing to do with the Hollywood blacklist, and no one was arrested or imprisoned over this either.

It's odd that people go on about the McCarthy era, when no one suffered anything worse than being asked a few questions under oath, but then totally forget the first Red Scare when 250,000 communists, socialists, and anarchists were actually arrested, imprisoned, or deported.

I'll not debate the etymology of the word blacklist with you. I understand the connotation and historical significance of the word.

To the point, my inquiry was likely analogous to the Red Scare you describe. It seems that the Patriot Act has loosened the requirements for investigation considerably. My concern is that the current atmosphere paranoia and the "need" for security is creating a monstrous police apparatus capable of extracting the rights and livelihood of any citizen that dare show up on scope.

[DimeBagHo]

To the point, my inquiry was likely analogous to the Red Scare you describe. It seems that the Patriot Act has loosened the requirements for investigation considerably. My concern is that the current atmosphere paranoia and the "need" for security is creating a monstrous police apparatus capable of extracting the rights and livelihood of any citizen that dare show up on scope.

I think the kind of moves discussed in the NYT article are worth watching closely. But what we are looking at here isn't even a trade-off between liberty and security. It's a trade-off between privacy and security.

Privacy can reinforce liberty, in so far as it is harder for the government, or anyone else, to interfere with your actions when they don't know what you're up to. But then security can also reinforce liberty, in so far as it is easier to get on with your own plans when you don't have to worry about being robbed, murdered, or similar. So trading privacy for security need not result in a net loss of liberty. If we strike the right balance we might come out ahead in terms of freedom to do what we choose to do, without interference from others.

[Nietzsche]

I think the kind of moves discussed in the NYT article are worth watching closely. But what we are looking at here isn't even a trade-off between liberty and security. It's a trade-off between privacy and security.

Privacy can reinforce liberty, in so far as it is harder for the government, or anyone else, to interfere with your actions when they don't know what you're up to. But then security can also reinforce liberty, in so far as it is easier to get on with your own plans when you don't have to worry about being robbed, murdered, or similar. So trading privacy for security result in a net loss of liberty. If we strike the right balance we might come out ahead in terms of freedom to do what we choose to do, without interference from others.

I just don't think we should be comfortable with a broad pretext for investigating any citizen. Particularly, when one need only to invoke the word "terror" to do it. It leans toward intrusive police power that erodes not only privacy, but liberty as well.

[kentuckybandit]

It's odd that people go on about the McCarthy era, when no one suffered anything worse than being asked a few questions under oath, but then totally forget the first Red Scare when 250,000 communists, socialists, and anarchists were actually arrested, imprisoned, or deported.

I think it is because people find it easier to latch onto a name or person like McCarthy. The only thing that came about from McCarthy was America got to watch a sad and paranoid man jump about on televised hearings accuse generals and public servants of being red. In fact McCarthy was one of the few people who was able to illicit an angry and profane response from Eisenhower, as has been seen in recent memoirs and conversation recordings.

[Exarch]

blacklists certainly exist in some form or another;

for instance the feds still keep an eye on certain groups that they fear may incite unrest, eg religious cults/sects

[Armenum]

It's natural that people's fear (fuelled often by emotions and not fact) will lead to easy consent to taking away over liberties and freedoms. It's a biologically sound trade-off for all humans. I don't think it's possible to balance these two sides flawlessly, you will always have one side giving up something. The question is, how much of each side is society willing to give up. I personally am willing to give up more on the liberties/freedoms side for more security as I have less qualms in some of its impacts than other people might have. In the end, it's a hard trade-off, not everyone will be satisfied, though this trade-off should be adjusted based on the situation.

[Simon Cashmere]

The problem I have with the 'No Fly List' is that you are not given due process in relation to what is a pretty substantial right, ie, to travel on an airplane. If you are a foreigner, so what, you have no rights - I accept that. But if you are a US citizen - you should not be denied due process just because it is considered a 'terror' thing. There was an example of a Catholic Nun that was on the No Fly list, and she had to use her contacts in Washington to get her off. You should be able to go before a judge and say, this is bs, I've done nothing wrong, remove me from the list. As it stands, that can't happen.

[Nietzsche]

The problem I have with the 'No Fly List' is that you are not given due process in relation to what is a pretty substantial right, ie, to travel on an airplane. If you are a foreigner, so what, you have no rights - I accept that. But if you are a US citizen - you should not be denied due process just because it is considered a 'terror' thing. There was an example of a Catholic Nun that was on the No Fly list, and she had to use her contacts in Washington to get her off. You should be able to go before a judge and say, this is bs, I've done nothing wrong, remove me from the list. As it stands, that can't happen.

Not to mention that the No Fly List has not worked on a number of famous occasions. I agree with your main point. It is unreasonable to bar a person from travel based solely on what they "might" do or what countries they have visited or persons they may have spoken to.