Wire Taps
This has been going around and around for quite a while now. The whole situation with President Bush having the secret domestic phone taps put on all over-seas calls. Which could, and has, created the need for more traces done on calls within the U.S. depending on what is found in any over-seas conversations that could be questionable.I really don't see what everyone is so upset about. Yes, technically it's probably an invasion of privacy. If someone wants to listen in on my phone calls and try to pick out key words like Bomb, President or key locations around the U.S., Feel free. I have nothing to hide. In fact they'd find it pretty boring to listen to me talk with my nearly 2-year-old daughter over the phone.
Here's the thing. A very well known president once said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." This is true more now than it was back 200 + years ago. The author of this quote was Thomas Jefferson.
I'm curious how others feel about this situation of the government wire taps. My personal opinion as I said before, is that I have nothing to hide. If there's a chance that further attacks on innocent Americans can be stopped because of the wiretaps, go for it. I'd like to know truly how many people are outraged about the wire-taps. Sometimes it looks like the news broadcasters are looking for reasons to create a sensational story, along with those politicians looking to get their faces and names in the paper and on the TV screens.
As for politics and politicians, I'll have more to say on that tomorrow. Please let me know your thoughts on this one...
posted by Matt @ 8:50 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
I saw your summary of a news article on a biodiesel car that I will comment on in that section, for now, I want to alert you to something I think you missed. When Jefferson spoke of vigilance, he was talking about what the opponents of the domestic surveillance program are doing, not what Bush is doing. He was saying that we need to keep a careful watch over our liberties, or they will be taken from us by tyrants. Don't you understand that this same statement "Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to worry about." is exactly the same statement that every tyrant has used since the practice of unwarranted search and seizure was first invented? Just because you aren't selling nuclear secrets to terrorists doesn't mean you don't have a right to privacy! And that is what this fight is all about.
If Bush cared one centilla about the concept of liberty, he would gladly comply with FISA. For God's sake! Why don't people understand this issue? It's not about people trying to stop the president from doing his job, it's about the PRESIDENT trying to AVOID doing his job. In this case, his job is clearly to authorize the surviellance of people who are suspected of terrorist activity, and comply with the FISA laws which say that he has all the authority in the world to do so if he does the RETROACTIVE paperwork that demonstrates the urgent need for this kind of privacy invasion to be done before the warrant is issued. To put it another way, FISA tells the president that he can listen to anyone's phone conversations that he wants to, whenever he wants to, so long as he is able to prove AFTERWARD that it was done for legitimate reasons. NO ONE is trying to stop him from "protecting America", they are instead INSISTING that he do so and that he PROTECT LIBERTY at the same time. The two are supposed to be inseparable, I'm told.
In case you weren't paying attention at the time, FISA was already contentious issue when the laws were first proposed. NEVER before had anyone suggested that our government should be allowed to violate the inalienable right of Habeas Corpus protection by producing the writ AFTER the fact. In other words, the ACLU and other civil rights groups were PLENTY PISSED when the law was proposed to let the government search and detain people without obtaining a warrant before hand.
I was also opposed to this when I heard it, but the betrayal of 9/11 made it clear that there are times when action must be taken swiftly to save lives. The rationale for the warrant may exist, but the time needed to issue the warrant ahead of time would make the action moot.
This is not even a partisan issue. Illegal wiretaps were done in the past by both major parties. J. Edgar Hoover, the creator of the FBI and it's undisputed leader through nearly half a century, used electronic surveillance to secure his power and attack his personal foes. No one has the right to unfettered access to the lives of Americans. I wouldn't let my MOM have that kind of access to my life, and I trust my mom. Now, if you are willing to let Bush tap your phone to find out who you might be voting for in the next election so he can be sure to send a volunteer to come talk you out of voting Democrat or voting for someone he doesn't like in the primary, then by all means, FORFEIT YOUR BIRTHRIGHT. Just don't expect those of us who know our rights to follow the rest of you sheep into the slaughterhouse. The law is clear, they can listen to anyone's calls so long as he can prove that they had a legitimate reason to do so later. The fact that he is unwilling to do this means that he is probably abusing his power as we speak and is desperate to cover it up.
I fear that many people who consider themselves to be conservative have fallen victim to Bush's lies, are being betrayed at the deepest levels (as are we all), and are "dittoheading" everything Bush says without thinking. I would ask anyone who says they "trust" Bush to tell me exactly what he has DONE to EARN that trust. He uses words (clumsily) like freedom, democracy, and patriotism. He proclaims himself to be a "compassionate conservative" and says his favorite political philosopher was "Jesus Christ" (Bush thinks that "Christ" was a last name in that time).
But look at what he has done. He has cut funding to: schools, veteran's hospitals and rehabilitation centers, student loans, victim advocate programs, welfare to work programs, and children's enrichment programs in urban areas (though not so much in rural areas). That's not very compassionate. IS he conservative? Bush has driven our budget and national debt from a Clinton-era SURPLUS and a Clinton Plan to eliminate the 4 trillion dollar debt in a decade to the highest deficit in U.S. History and a national debt that will be nearly TRIPLE that of the Clinton era if we stay with Bush's proposed budget for the next three years. That's not very conservative at all.
Jesus told his followers to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and house the poor. Under this "compassionate" administration, more children in the U.S. are suffering from malnutrition, living below the poverty line, and have no home to call their own than at any point since the Great Depression. That doesn't sound like what Jesus would do. Jesus told his followers that if someone strikes them across their cheek, they should turn the other cheek toward them, offering it for another strike. It's no wonder most people don't understand this, since the U.S. has NEVER been a Christian nation. But George W. Bush has made it U.S. policy to STRIKE FIRST if it appears someone is about to strike us. That doesn't sound like what Jesus would do at all.
Your misinterpretation of Jefferson begs for me to quote Franklin. Often paraphrased and improperly placed in quotation marks, here is the actual quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
As horrifying as the 9/11 betrayal was, it was a momentary event in a struggle that may not last long, if we work intelligently to end fascism by modeling the virtues of freedom. Bush wants us to lay on our backs and let him have his way and he will continue to use fear to achieve that goal. This is not a conservative trait. This is not a Christian trait. This is a tyrant's trait.
I am also a bit confused about your attribution for this "Jefferson" quote. Not that it should matter so much who said it. But I am sure he'd agree with the quote in it's context.
Bartlett's has this entry:
It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.—John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790. (Speeches. Dublin, 1808.)
Now, I don't know about you, but it seems that the people trying to preserve liberty are the ones fighting the illegal acts by the Bush administration. Bush has the power, and is "the active" person seeking to destroy the liberty of personal privacy. I believe that would put the "people with nothing to hide" in the position of "the indolent", at least, insofar as this quote is concerned.
I don't think the Bushites are truly indolent, just scared. But so are we all. But the question is, what do you fear more, terrorism, or tyranny?
To paraphrase Pink Floyd's David Gilmore:
"Don't exchange a walk-on part in a war for a lead role in a cage."
This was, I believe a rephrasing of Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty or give me death!"
In case you don't know the context, the colonials were afraid to fight the British over the endless injustices and indignities the King imposed on them. Henry was a loyalist early on, but soon came to see that the King was not the good man he thought he was. It was only with great fear in his own heart of the consequences of war that he made this historic plea for action on the part of the indolent colonies.
I applaud your attempts to quote our great nation's founders. I would hope that you explore the context better and understand that putting our nation "on a war footing" is not the same as "protecting liberty". I can smash a mosquito with a sledgehammer, but if it's on your head at the time, does that help you?
Post a Comment
<< Home