In his article, "The Sky is Falling," Corey Shoock attempts (I assume) to provoke debate regarding the Patriot Act, as well as to entertain the reader. However, his rambling, barely coherent effort at a Dennis Miller-esque editorial fails, on both counts.
The entire piece is a jab against the U.S. government and the entire democratic process. While ignoring the bipartisan legislature that passed the Patriot Act, he attacks the federal judiciary and the executive of the United States. Without ever affirmatively addressing the findings of the courts or making a lucid point in any regard, Shoock spews forth empty rhetoric about telephoto lenses and Constitutional violations. Not only does he use meaningless terms, (surveillance violations, oligarchy of oppression) he calls our federal government the "enemies of tomorrow".
If Shoock read, or at least marginally familiarized himself with the history of our Constitution, he would realize that the protections afforded U.S. citizens have been liberally protected for centuries. Though there are many cases where injustices have occurred because or in spite of governmental action, long have the democratic and judicial systems of our nation been molding a haven for universal liberty and equal protection of the law. Countless measures have been passed by Congress and supported by presidents to ensure and expand civil rights and liberties in the United States. Perhaps more importantly, however, are the findings of the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary. Mapp v. Ohio, In re Gault, Miranda v. Arizona, Reno v. A.C.L.U.; the case law abundantly and incontrovertibly champions the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens.
I argue not against open and vital debate; truly, the Patriot Act must be carefully scrutinized by all levels of government and by a wary and concerned public. I do argue, however, that no one man, no one administration, can erase over 200 years of judicial and legislative precedent and begin to irrevocably "move civil liberties in reverse," so to speak .Things may change, powers to protect our citizens may be created and altered, destroyed and created again. But will anything so radically alter such fundamental foundations of our nation? To suggest so is not provocative; it's insulting to the liberal and legal processes.
Additionally, I find that Shoock's references to Attorney General John Ashcroft as "der Fuhrer" and "Heinrich Himmler" and to President Reagan as "Josef Stalin" abhorrent. It's unfathomable that anyone (especially someone that would have the readers of his work take him seriously) would equate current and former U.S. leaders to the most maniacal, murderous lunatics in history. To make such a comparison is of course distasteful, but moreover, it is ignorant.
In times of war and peace, hardship and prosperity, our nation has grown and moved forward in positive ways. Our nation's justice, legal, and legislative processes are tried and true. Ours is not a perfect system, but it continually strives toward that ultimate goal. That is what makes it great, and that's why it works. Contrary to what Shoock would have us believe, the democratic process is not a sham.
