Don't be silly. For every repressive law you can find for the UK, I can find 10 for the US. Despite your nicely formatted constitution, your rights are fucked. Ever been to an airport?
What you need is not greater adherence to a bit of paper, but sane elected officials and sane people electing those officials.
Actually, you have to go find twenty, since I'll just add RIPA.
Sorry, thirty: Terrorism Act 2000, even predates the 9/11 hysteria.
No, forty: Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
Fifty: Terrorism Act 2006
England still has an established church. I'll be nice and just count that as one, so... Sixty...
Not all of our rights are as respected as they should be, but if you had any actual knowledge of US history, you'd realize that without our written constitution, we would have ten repressive laws for every one in the UK. It is only thanks to that constitution and the powers of our courts that we have any remaining freedom at all.
It's a peculiar thing, but when I'm in the US, and potentially subject to the death penalty and aware that the people around me may be armed with guns - particularly armed police - I feel far more fear than I do as an Irishman in London. Those two things, gun culture and death penalties, are massive.
From a UK perspective, the US executive looks almost rampant. The constitution is not an effective check on federal power; the commerce clause seems to have magical capabilities. The US president has just recently asserted the authority to unilaterally assassinate US citizens without a trial upon conviction by some secret and undefined court ("due process, not judicial process").
At least RIPA creates legal justification for intelligence monitoring of communications. The US executive appeared to just unilaterally appropriate that capability with retroactive immunity.
> Those two things, gun culture and death penalties, are massive.
I oppose both, but some things are more important than personal safety.
> The constitution is not an effective check on federal power; the commerce clause seems to have magical capabilities.
The constitution is in many ways an effective check on all levels of government, but not in all matters. Arguing about the commerce clause is very bizarre, however -- I have to think you don't understand what it's been used for if you're dragging this into a discussion of basic rights.
> asserted the authority to unilaterally assassinate US citizens without a trial
I suggest reviewing the SAS's conduct in Northern Ireland.
> At least RIPA creates legal justification for intelligence monitoring of communications. The US executive appeared to just unilaterally appropriate that capability with retroactive immunity.
The fact that warrantless surveillance had to be done in secret is exactly the point. I prefer a country where such evil must be carried out covertly to one in which it is openly accepted.
> I oppose both, but some things are more important than personal safety.
I'm sure I could be very "free" in the anarchy of Somalia, but without safety, effective freedoms are very limited. Quite a lot of government tyranny is needed to create a space for freedom to begin with. A social safety net, subsidized or free college education, socialized medicine (whether through public or universal private coverage), etc.; I consider some of these things fundamental to living a life of freedom rather than fear.
> Arguing about the commerce clause is very bizarre, however -- I have to think you don't understand what it's been used for if you're dragging this into a discussion of basic rights.
Gonzales v. Raich, for example.
> I suggest reviewing the SAS's conduct in Northern Ireland.
I'm not aware of the British prime minister ever standing up in the Commons and effectively announcing the right to kill UK citizens. Government wrongdoing, particularly by security services, are ten a penny in most large states, IMO. These days, in the western world, it's usually governments succumbing to US arm-twisting.
I understand that you're invested in defending the US. I, however, don't have a particularly strong motivation to defend the UK; I'm not a UK citizen, I've just lived here for a few years. I'm not interested in attacking the US in this argument. I'm just saying that, as a practical matter, I feel more free, and less afraid of the state, in the UK than I do in the US - and I work for a US company and visit the US multiple times every year for weeks at a time.
(If I wanted to attack Parliament's involvement in Ireland, I'd rather point to Cromwell. But those days are past.)
> I prefer a country where such evil must be carried out covertly to one in which it is openly accepted.
If this is your true position, be aware that you have not chosen one of a dichotomy; you have in fact chosen a superset of tyranny. Not just evil acts; but covert evil acts.
But, of course, the UK has committed its own share of covert evil acts. I don't think it's ever been caught running a network of secret prisons in modern times, though.
You're reading a lot more into my statements than what is there. I loathe my country and would leave it in a heartbeat were it practical -- but not for the UK.
Altering rights in the heat of the moment is precisely what we don't want.