The post about NSA spying offers up some interesting arguments to be made to the President's supporters. It would seem logical to ask how warrantless spying for security's sake, in the face of the Fourth Amendment, contrasts with curbs on the Second Amendment. How logical is it to say that the 4th is disposable for safety and that the 2nd is not? The argument that the curbs on the 2nd have not been realistic falls in the face of FISA as an essentially rubber stamp body. It would be pointless to suggest that Pres Bush in unable to hold two mutually exclusive points of view, he's demonstrated that capacity many times, but he's not the issue. His supporters are the issue, if he loses these folks, he loses the very thing he and Republicans in Congress can't afford to lose, the frightened middle vote.
A link to "Myths About Wiretapping" http://www.bordc.org/threats/nsamyths.php
There's a huge warning for anyone who wants to use such an argument, it's a very slippery slope to get on. The outcome of making such an argument is that you find yourself standing for all civil liberties and that they are not disposable for "safety." Politicians of all stripes do not find it hard to pursue legislation or other actions that contradict this point, and yet they all seem to have "favorite" civil liberties that cannot stand with such behavior.
For any of you who think these actions by Pres Bush are something new, you simply have not been paying attention for the last 40 years (and more). At one time there was a very narrow standard was considered to be required for curbing civil liberties, essentially it was that there needed to be a universally inevitable severe harm involved in the exercise of the liberty. A common example : yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Convenience and fear have broadened the standards until now even calling them standards is an exaggeration. Political actions do not occur in a vacuum, toleration of this trend has encouraged it.
If you don't like what President Bush and Congress is up to with The Patriot Act, Habeas Corpus, and the NSA; then you'd better start yelling at your representatives every time they propose actions that run counter to a very narrow standard, and work to reverse the existing infringements, whether they directly affect you or not. These infringements will eventually work their way to your sacred cow.
I'm sure somebody has something to say about this or knows of an elected official that does this, use the "Comment" link.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The balance between civil liberties and security is always strained during times of national stress. Usually, the public readily surrenders some liberty for the promise of more security, that is untilsome time passes and the government makes chilling inroads on personal liberty, thus awakening the public. Then security measures are modified and the public goes back to sleep.
Here are a few examples of civil liberties being traded for security:
1. Succession and the Civil War. How many died to keep the South from having the liberty of founding their own country?
2. Japanese Internment Camps. Removing the Japanese from our free society did nothing to bring about a quick end to the war. All we did was trample the civil liberties of a loyal part of our society.
3. President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus several times during the Civil War - all illegally and to no military benefit.
4. Surveillance of Quakers. Yes, we spied on and interrogated Quakers as if they were something other than "different".
5. Palmer Raids - some 10,000 people were arrested in the US during 1918-1921 for political dissent, including radical leaders and union leaders.
So, the actions we are seeing are not unusual for a frightened society, but that does not make them right or even constitutional. Hopefully, we are now at the time for the pendulum to swing back, restoring civil liberties and our battered image. (Note the present condition of the Patriot Act and get ready to call your congressional representatives when the Act comes up again.)
Democracy depends on tireless watching and action to control those who seek power at the expense of civil liberty.
Bruce
I know of several commentators who have mentioned that with the "work arounds" involved in FISA warrants the only reasonable explanation for the Administration's actions is as a broadening of the Executive Branch's power. Nah, Dubya wouldn't do that...
Last night in his State of the Union address President Bush continued his characterization of the NSA surveillance program as clear choice between continued surveillance and inevitable attack in the US. This is entirelly beside the point. The hidden elephant is the break down of the American system of checks and balances. What is so horrible about review by an independant body to ensure that abuses do not take place? I am not actually so worried about now or about abuse by our current administartion as I am by the precedent that the President (Clinton, Nixon, Harding, unnamed Democrat, unnamed Rebulican) can take action that seemingly violates the Bill of Rights simply by asserting there is a need, or rather just by doing it and asserting a need after getting caught out.
02/03/06
Senate Intelligence Cmt Chair Pat Roberts (R-Kan), "I am concerned that some of my Democrat colleagues used this unique public forum to make clear that they believe the gravest threat we face is not Osama bin Laden and al Qaida, but rather the president of the United States"
If the Dems don't make it clear, I sure will, GWB is a bigger threat to the USA than Osama and his rats.
He added that Democratic senators were under "marching orders" to attack Bush aides "and now members of our intelligence agencies."
Well, "DUH?" Maybe the esteemed Sen Roberts ought to read the Constitution, the BOR, and a little Revolutionary history - but then, those guys weren't weak kneed jelly fish...
Post a Comment