Customer Reviews

Lost Liberties: Ashcroft and the Assault on Personal Freedom

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Every once in a while a compilation will come out that is an actual literary work.

Whether you agree or not with the content, the writing is excellennt. Well writen, informative and intelligent.

Now for the content.

"These events have taught us the not altogether surprising lesson that when the government is allowed to avoid the safeguards designed to protect the innocent, many innocents suffer."

There are a few good examples of history when the US has pushed the boundaries and has paid the price. These lessons learned are discussed and analyzed with our present situation. There are good examples and explanations of certain sections of the Patriot Act and what the possible ramifications are.

While I agree the scrutiny to our security is important it is increasingly important that the checks and balances put in place by the people who learned the lessons of the past are used to protect the innocent fish pull up by the gill nets.

- Do you think Americans should be able to publicly criticize their government?
- Do you think our government should be able to persecute Americans who dare to do so?

If you've ever been a victim of U.S. authorities (for embracing policies in opposition to the new right), this book will help you understand why it is now perfectly legal.
This book is well written and provides vital scrutiny of questionable incursions by the Bush Administration. It outlines specific issues where Ashcroft and Bush have injected their personal theologies into public policy under the guise of public safety. The attentive reader recognizes it's underlying theme; when morality is mandated, morality looses it's merit. Sanctioned morality is oppression. If you are alarmed by our government's persecution of American citizens who dare to criticize their hidden agendas, you will enjoy this read.

Why does John Ashcroft hate the constitution?

Could it be because it guarantees freedom of religion, when Ashcroft would prefer an evangelical Christian theocracy?

Could it be because it guarantees freedom of speech, and Ashcroft feels speech should be reserved solely for those who donate to the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign?

Could it be because the constitution doesn't differentiate based on sex, class, or color, when Ashcroft differentiates based on each of these categories?

Could it be all of the above? Of course it could. And it is. Four more years with Reich Minister Ashcroft as our attorney general, and the constitution could be reduced to a modern version of the Nuremberg laws.

Boy, would he love that.

The best compilation regarding the liberties lost by human beings, particularly women through mighty thought unipolar world system. " The Bush Administration's binary logic of the "either you are with us or against us "echoes the false dichotomous choices forwarded by fundamentalists who by engaging in essentialist politics of identity ,are bent upon denying ordinary people right to choice.

This screed offers nothing of value. It is liberal fear mongering and slander of John Ashcroft because he is a conservative Christian, a Republican and an attorney-general who is doing his job. You only have something to fear from the Patriot Act if you are doing something wrong! The Patriot Act has not squashed political dissent or freedom of the press. It's absurd to suggest so. Maybe all these liberal fear mongers should spend some time in Iran or North Korea to understand true loss of liberties. As for the extra attention paid visitors from Arab countries, it is only common sense because those countries are the source of anti-US terror! I laugh at the politically correct lament over racial profiling. As a foreigner in the US, I am thankful for the additional security at airports and the watchful surveillance of so-called Islamic charities and Iranian diplomats taking photographs of public buildings.