So this made me happy, as you can probably guess.
Three cheers for the Bill of Rights! You wonderful articles of freedom and liberty and general happiness. Take a rest, boys, you've certainly deserved it! Sit back, put your feet up. We'll take it from here. ...Are they gone? All right, guys, first order of business is to reverse everything the Bill of Rights means or has ever stood for. Hup to!
The fact that everyone feels free to refer to the discussion of warrantless wiretapping--for warrentless it is, folks--as a debate has always struck me as surprising. There's no debate here, honestly. A "debate" would imply that there exist two sides that have legitimate points and that the issue is multi-faceted, requiring long periods of thoughtful contemplation. Saying that this issue merits debate is a fallacy, like debating whether gangland-style executions are sometimes justified. This is what the situation seems to be: There exists a general overhanging threat of terrorism to this country. To combat said threat, the federal government decides to tap the phones of those people it deems as possible terrorists. To give itself more room to move, as it were, the government decides that warrants are for pansies and only unregistered taps will suffice.
The itsy-bitsy problem I keep having with this program is that it's basically illegal. Oh, let's go ahead and take out the "basically" while we're at it! It is illegal. Let me put it in big old letters now: illegal. That's as in "not obeying the law."
The problem I have with governments who don't obey the law is that they're tyrannical. To paraphrase Lewis Black, "Pretend to care." Act like you have a shred of respect for anything this country was founded on, Mr. President. Lull me into a sense of false security. Sweep me away with a lullaby of security that I don't really have, because hey! Agent McGillicuddy from the CIA is listening to me talk to my girlfriend as she comes home from her dad's in Buffalo!
Somehow, though, Georgie Porgie Pudding and Pie has managed to make warrentless wiretapping sound like the party of the century and get a large number of people in this country on his side. I honestly can't figure out how he did it. "C'mon guys, all the cool industrialized nations are doing it." But he's managed to get an actual discussion going in an arena that no discussion should ever peek its beedy little eyes into. The points I have heard thus far are:
1. "If you're innocent, why should you worry?" Well, let's start off with this little phobia I have about that little phrase. You know, a lot of European nations said that when Hitler invaded Poland. They thought he was just after the territory that had been stripped from Germany after the first World War. It was just after everyone had caught their breath with this calming little statement that people began to realize that good old Adolph was crazier than the twisted love child of Charlie Manson and Britney Spears. Look, saying that the fact that you aren't personally affected by an illegal practice makes it okay to do said practice is downright ignorant. These things are illegal for a reason. People get hurt and governments turn into dictatorships. The fact that you aren't getting hurt is immaterial. Somebody is, and that should be enough to get your dander up.
2. "All the civil liberties in the world can't help you if you're dead." This is true. But this presumes that liberty is less important than security. When people start listening to Ben "Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security" Franklin, my stress levels will drop like a clay pigeon. The fact remains that this country only exists because a number of very angry men (and women, but they're not in the paintings so whatever) got out their quills and muskets and said "Hey George! Enough is e-bloody-nough! We're off to seek liberty, you have fun." Honor this principle, boys and girls. Honor it well. Without the freedoms and liberties that we are guaranteed by the very virtue of being human, we are lost.
It's not that we deserve these liberties, this right to privacy and free speech and whatnot. It's that we have them, plain and simple. And the moment that the government tries to take them away is the moment the government has gone too far by half.
Kudos to you! No one should be above the law
The best ideas ever conceived never made history because they were never expressed.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/speakonitsista
I completely agree.
Very witty and well argued.
My problem with your argument is...where in the constitution does it say it is illegal to wiretap? There is no guaranteed right to privacy or secrecy... I agree with you, warrantless wire-tapping is wrong, but what argument does our side have if it isn't actually against the law. The law is that evidence gained by the wiretap cannot be used in a court of law, unless gained with a warrant, but under the constitution (not just an amendment) the right to habeas corpus can be denied if it is a case of treason or if someone is endangering the public safety. Since most cases where warrantless wire-tapping is used involve treason or endangering public safety, the government doesn't actually have to tell the convicted what crime they've committed, thus neutralizing the need to legally present the evidence gained in the warrantless wire-tap...
Again, I agree with you, it is wrong and a law needs to be made. But that's the problem, a law needs to be made...
I have found this site that I think is a pretty wonderfully balanced site that expresses both our sides. My belief, in case you don't want to look at the site, is that the Bill of Rights spells out specific rights to privacy, including the privacy from unwarranted search and seizure (4th) and right against self-incrimination (5th). Plus, the 9th says that the rights expressed in the BoR should not be used to take any other rights away from the people. When it comes to the founding fathers, sometimes I think we need to operate by the spirit as well as the letter of their legislation. They couldn't have put anything in the Constitution about wiretapping, it was a fantastic concept. Either we expand our official definition of "privacy" to include electronic privacy (which I think is covered by association) or we pass a law, sure. I realize there exists a demographic that requires everything be spelled out, I just think in this case there's precedent to act as though it's already spelled out.
The law that you refer to regarding suspension of habeas corpus is not a law. I believe you're referring to a Supreme Court decision around the first half of the 1900s. Correct me if I'm wrong.
--Samus
(if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention)
Nice piece. I particularly liked the point you make in this reply regarding privacy being protected under the fifth amendment.
The inroads that the current White House Administration has made into devaluing the citizens of the United States by undermining the constitution and the freedoms that they guarantee are many and far reaching. The reasons for this I believe can be found in the movie ZEITGEIST .
The word Zeitgeist can be translated or understood as either general or common consensus or guiding spirit. Which are almost contradictions in terms but it is a concept very well suited for understanding why the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and don't forget the Declaration of Independence are essential for making democracy a noble pursuit rather than an order of mob rule.
Restoring Faith In Humanity One Acquaintance At A Time