Much has been made overthe past few years about profiling. Profiling is the practice of looking for certain "types" of people and holding them under greater scrutiny. And while the practice of singling out people based on their race, religion, gender or whatever will always be a "hot button" debate issue, republican lawmakers are lobbying Speaker Nanci Pelosi for something more extreme.
The Washington Times reported that republican lawmakers are trying to get Pelosi to protect legislation that frees "John Does" from being sued if it turns out their intentions were less than noble or downright malicious.
The legislation was slipped into a bill last month. Majority leader Steny Hoyer has eluded that he might take out or block the provision from the final bill. The changes would be made in conference comittee. Something the republican majority did to democrats on a regular basis.
That doesn't make the potential move right, however. The Democrats did pledge to not be as low-down as the GOP was when they held the majority. And I certainly gave them some leeway with their "1st 100 days" or whatever so they could set their agenda and make some statements. But at this point, it's time to work for the American people, not the democratic party.
But that aslo doesn't mean that the democrats should allow the legislation to be "slipped" into another broader bill in silence. These are our rights after all. Our civil liberties, that are supposed to be the bedrock of our democracy.
This legislation deserves full debate and disclosure. The merits of anonymity and it's weight on whistle blowing need to be openly weighed against the individual's right not to be harassed or detained for no good reason. And if there is no good reason, the victim's rights to "face his accuser" as the Constitution dictates as well as his protection from false and malicious accusations need to be weighed as well against other factors that play in.
Both parties are to be scolded for trying to either make this bill law or squash it behind closed doors instead of before the American people.
The American people demanded a change in direction in November. Part of that was a change in Iraq and our overall approach to the threats around the world. Another demand was a change from the old school days of backroom deals and corruption and greater transparency in our government. And that is not exclusive to the executive branch.
Debates don't get much more important than ones on our civil liberties. To me, and many others, they are a cornerstone to our society. They are a major component of what we sell around the world as what is so great about America. Our freedoms, our rights, our liberties. The rights of free speech, religion and assembly. The rights that allow us to defend ourselves, especially against an unjust and oppresive government. The rights protecting our homes from being raided in the middle of the night by gestapo like soldiers with no cause or warrant. The rights of innocence until guilt is proven. The right to have our "day in court" before an unbiased judge or jury of our peers.
And the right not to be harassed or detained for no good reason whatsoever. And the right to seek justice if we are wronged.
And if you don't think it can happen to you, think again. Think about how a malicious and unscrupulous ex, co-worker, competitor or foe of any kind could use the cloak of anonymity to crush their opposition, or at least ruin their day, week or month.
But on the other hand, there is an argument to be made for the protection of truly good people who are observing truly suspicious behavior and might only be brave enough to speak up to protect the rest of us with that cloak of anonymity and protection from intimidation or retaliation.
Of course, it would be nice if everyone was brave and corageous enough to not need anything to hide behind in order to speak up. But in this very real world, that isn't the case.
Like I said, it is a debate we need to have. And not the old conservative vs. liberal, "their position proves they are really bad, un-patriotic people" debate. A real one that weighs our liberty and our security. Principles vs. pragmatism. Keeping in mind that on the whole, we all want to be as free and safe as we can be and despite what the pundits want, we are all really on the same side here and want the best for our families, communities and country.
But the last thing we should alow our representatives to do is decide this in a closed room, being treated as "political poker chips" and on an equal footing with less vital proposals and bills. And to be negotiated on as if they were.