Ben Says:
To give up any liberty is a risk but to do it out of fear is a tragedy. Not only that but when a free nation like ours gives up something -- or imposes that loss on select citizens out of our fear -- a great sense of trust must exist between the government and the citizens who elected it.
Because we have these annoyances called laws we ALL agree to abide by them. I didn't cast any votes that I can remember giving this administration carte blanch to do whatever it damned well pleased because we have a "war" going on that it can't define what it is, where it's at, and can't agree on just how to "stay the course". Was there a vote taken and I was on break or something? "Just trust me", doesn't work for me anymore ever since I figured out my parents lied to me about Santa Claus.
And so to the fear mongering conservatives out there try to remember this, please. Because there are laws, EVERYONE must follow them or change them legally through due process. The reason I caution you is because some of those very laws at which you scoff may sneak up behind you and bite you in the ass. Someday some of you may need that due process to work for you. Oh, I'm sorry, some of you have needed this irritating 230 year old system. I forgot.
LIBERTY OR SECURITY - MUST WE CHOOSE?
We seem to be faced with an unpleasant choice. Are you willing to give up liberty to be safe? This is actually a misleading question since it assumes that we live in a world where liberty and safety are direct trade-offs - that we necessarily become safer when we give up our liberty.
This false choice between safety and liberty has been offered by the Bush Administration to justify its post-9/11 policies that undermine civil liberties. But the PATRIOT Act and related executive branch directives strip away fundamental rights of free speech, privacy and due process without making us any safer.
Consider, for example, Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. It permits the government to seize your records from third parties without telling you, including your library reading lists, your medical and mental health records, your banking information, and your Internet Service Provider records. To make matters worse, Section 215 makes it a crime for the librarian, health care provider, bank or ISP to tell you that your records have been seized.
After a constitutional challenge to Section 215 was filed, former Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the Justice Department had never actually used Section 215 to seize a library patron's books. This admission, of course, suggests what most of us knew all along: that giving the government access to your reading habits does not make you any safer. Only less free.
The first impulse of the government in all times of crisis is control and coercion. A government unconstrained by law, tradition, or public opinion is nothing short of despotic. Not everything can be justified in the name of punishment, prevention, and safety.
History teaches that in times of national insecurity, there is a tendency to sacrifice Constitutional protections in the name of national security. This is our moment in history. So the next time someone asks you whether you are willing to sacrifice freedom in the name of security, ask them a few questions of your own.
One very important question to ask is - Which rights are we being asked to give up and who decides? WHICH RIGHTS: The Bush Administration has not gone to Congress and asked for certain rights, habeas corpus, or any other rights to be modified or changed. Instead it has merely attempted to expand the power of the Executive branch and implemented clearly unconstitutional policies and programs.
And also remember to ask WHO DECIDES. But when you do just remember that in his own words George W. Bush is THE DECIDER.
There’s never a good time to give up liberty. But when everyone else is calling for despotism to fight despotism, it’s the best time to stand up and say: We will not be moved. We need more, not less, liberty.
Ben Franklin is one of the greatest American heroes of all time. He could be credited with the American victory in the Revolutionary War, as it was his diplomatic skills which prompted France to enter the war on our side, thus tipping the scales against the British. But in this matter, I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Franklin. The fact is, Ben Franklin lived in a different time. There is no way he could ever imagine a jet, much less a jet being used as a weapon of mass destruction. Neither him nor the Constitutional delegates could have ever imagined such technology as cell phones, internet, and spy satellites. And thus it is up to us to interpret the Constitution and do the best we can to apply it to today's modern world. The fact remains, Americans have always had to sacrifice some civil liberties during times of war. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus until the end of the war in order to detain Confederate agents and not have them fighting against the Union on the battlefield. FDR interned 100,000 Japanese-American during WWII in order to prevent spying from within the United States. They were treated humanely in the camps, and at the conclusion of the war, were released.
What George Bush has done pales in comparison to these examples. The fact is, the wiretapping that is being done by the NSA is extremely focused and not widespread as many media pundits would have you believe. It applies only to known or suspected Al Qaeda agents, and only applies to international calls. No domestic calls are being monitored. Unless you are talking to Uncle Osama in Pakistan, you have nothing to fear. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. In a post-9/11 world, we must use all tools necessary to prevent attacks and protect American citizens here and abroad. Gone are the days when we simply waited to be hit and reacted. Remember, one dirty bomb can really ruin your day.
So can a pair of corrupt judges and a prosecutor or two.
