'1984' in 2007? Ex-White House Aides Say Parallels are Disturbing

'1984' in 2007? Ask Ex-White House, Hill aides Bob Weiner and John Larmett; Congress Should Follow Oregon Federal Court's Lead and Say 'NO;' oped in Oregonian today

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - Is George Orwell's '1984' happening today? "Congress should follow an Oregon federal court's lead and say 'No' to "1984" in 2007," former Clinton White House aide Bob Weiner and Senate aide John Larmett argue in an oped in today's Oregonian, "Orwell in 2007."

A former Clinton White House Public Affairs Director, Weiner, and Larmett, who was Judiciary Legislative Assistant to Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) and legislative assistant to Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), assert that portions of "1984," Orwell's novel about a theoretical modern-day government with absolute power -- a state in which government monitors and controls every aspect of human life -- "are happening right now in 2007."

Weiner and Larmett point out, "There are parallels between the theoretical state controlled by the Party Orwell portrays and real America today. In '1984,' giant telescreens in every room monitor behavior. Individuals are encouraged to spy on one another, even children on their parents, and report any disloyalty to the Party. Today, signs along Interstate Highways urge, 'Report Suspicious Behavior;' and cameras mounted at strategic locations monitor our everyday movement. Red, yellow and orange are no longer just pretty colors -- they represent security alerts. Despite the doublespeak -- as in '1984' -- of today's 'Patriot Act,' people are told they are "unpatriotic" to oppose what they believe to be un-American provisions of the bill."

"Last month an Oregon federal judge ruled that crucial parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow federal surveillance and searches of American citizens without demonstrating probable cause. Also last month, a New York U.S. District Judge ordered the FBI to stop secretly obtaining e-mail and telephone data without first securing a warrant -- what he called 'the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values.'"

Weiner and Larmett note, "Congress is now revisiting the legality of the Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance programs, torture of prisoners in secret prisons, and barring detainees from counsel. In the next few months, Congress must renew, change, or sunset these programs. Congress must act or the courts should permanently strike down these presidential fear-based abuses." Source: Robert Weiner Associates

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark October 15, 2007 6:47 pm (Pacific time)

JMac: In case you did not recognize list, it is from review of act and responses to it, carried in OREGONIAN, which I use since it is recent Pulitzer Prize-winner. Where's your documentation ?

Henry Ruark October 15, 2007 3:31 pm (Pacific time)

JMac: Forgot to mention I learn something every day from these Comments --mostly about people and their psychologies.

Henry Ruark October 15, 2007 3:25 pm (Pacific time)

JMac: After what you wrote, which of these liberties in this law are you willing to forego, for yourself and all others ?: 1. Establishing huge surveillance system with no court approval, no probable cause. 2. Holding citizens indefinitely without access to courts or counsel. 3. Taping attorney-client communications. 4. Creating system for U.S. citizens to report on each other, regardless of reason, including paranoia or ethnic bias. 5. Massive computer system to monitor every purchase. 6. Monitoring library withdrawals and internet communications. 7. Creating a national identification card. Perhaps you can see now why your to-me/unthinking or uninformed response demanded challenge; either you had not read this act OR you are willing to conform for your own safety, despite dangers to others per OREGONIAN documentation I immediately supplied. It is the reasonable, rational approach that counts; don't let "big words" ever bother you, there's always that free op/sys dictionary. Re "rant" and "low-shot" cut off by editor Tim, that simply displays typical attitude of tribe when challenged.

Henry Ruark October 15, 2007 2:52 pm (Pacific time)

JMac: If you prefer your own words, you stated: "I am more than willing to sacrifice a few liberties to keep myself and everyone else a bit safer." Nothing there about anyone or any force defending liberty for all, so clearly sensible to assume you really do not care except for own salvation. Which is presumptuous in a certain way, whose label I'll leave to others, except to state that is the beginning death of any democracy.

JMac October 15, 2007 2:47 pm (Pacific time)

I wonder if Henry talks the way he writes.....

Editor: JMac, this is deleted for good reason, please be careful with the things that you suggest here, we appreciate a professional attitude among all, thanks.

Henry Ruark October 15, 2007 2:27 pm (Pacific time)

JMac: Yr comments self-defeating, it seems. Re "rant", will depart from usual deliberative style one day simply to build clear contrast. Dictionary comes free on most opsys...you can build skills easily via these Comments.

JMac October 15, 2007 1:05 pm (Pacific time)

Anything else Henry? You appear to have given your keyboard quite the stress test as you banged out all those big words... Seeing that my reading level is so abysmal, could you please dumb it down a bit so I can understand your ranting?

Henry Ruark October 15, 2007 11:38 am (Pacific time)

JMac: Re-reading yrs, seems you presumptously distort Orwell's famous abilities to describe far future in terms worldfamed for precision and credibility.

Henry Ruark October 15, 2007 10:22 am (Pacific time)

JMac et al: Reliable press reports seem to document mine-above. Here's one from Big O, months ago: "Mayfield earns thanks" 12/02/2006 "Brandon Mayfield deserves thanks from all of us for persevering in his challenge to the horrendous treatment he received under the grotesquely misnamed USA Patriot Act." "Mayfield's experience is a clear warning as to what could happen to any of us ..." - The Oregonian (Articles)

Henry Ruark October 15, 2007 9:36 am (Pacific time)

JMac et al: Yr assumption is entirely unwarranted and tells either you have not read the act or that your reading level is abysmal. NO American Constitutionally (LARGE-C !) devoted to liberties constituted therein can even skim this one without sudden fear and foreboding. IF indeed you value yours and everyone else's basic liberties as Founders-stated and then well and bloodily earned rights, reflecting now world-famed values and solid responsibilities intertwined, then one must rationally and reasonably agree that this lawmaking debacle needs strong determined opposition leading to decent re-doing or dismissal entirely.

JMac October 15, 2007 7:57 am (Pacific time)

I would surmise that critics of the "USAPATRIOT" act most likely have something to hide. An honest person should have no reason to fear the program. There is so much going on in the world today, I am more than willing to sacrifice a few liberties to keep myself and everyone else a bit safer. When Orwell composed "1984" I doubt he had any idea of what it would be like in 2007 and what obstacles we would need to overcome to thwart terrorism. Say what you want, I think the program is a tool that is vital to my safety.

Neal Feldman October 14, 2007 5:43 pm (Pacific time)

I wish folks would stop calling it 'the Patriot Act'. It has nothing to do with patriotism, it is the antithesis of patriotism. It is an acronym... a word made up from the first letters of a sentence or title, in this case it is the USAPATRIOT Act meaning Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. Sit it should always be referred to as the USAPATRIOT Act, not 'the patriot act'. Otherwise it does what the GOP noise machine wants... to paint it as an act of pstriotism, and any criticism of it as inherently unpatriotic. Maybe I am a lone wolf howling in the wilderness about this but I will continue to howl nonetheless. Ah well...

[Return to Top]