Certainly there is more that goes on in Washington than any of us know. And certainly most of us would support efforts of government employees to confound an enemy. Yet I’m sure you’d agree that there are limits.
For example, suppose a government employee saw you approach a mosque and speak with a member briefly, decided that because of that contact you should be under suspicion of associating with terrorists, and sent a law enforcement official to camp out at your house, inside, listening to everything that you said to your family members and anyone who stopped by or called. I am sure – or at least I hope – that you would find such behaviour unacceptable. Why? Because it is an illegal intrusion on your privacy.
The situation, then, is a matter of degree – as are almost all debatable issues in a world where there is little black and white.
For me, the easiest line I can find to decide what is acceptable and what is unacceptable is the legal line. I sometimes take issue with what is currently legal vs. what is currently illegal, but I think it’s always a good starting point. In this case, it is illegal for the government to search a residence or place a wiretap on a communication device without obtaining a court order, and none of the arguments I’ve heard so far have convinced me that the president or any of his aides had the authority to override this law. Especially since it is extremely unlikely that the FISA court would have turned down any request along those lines.
There are many who disagree with my point of view on the matter, and who make reasonable arguments on the other side. I respect their right to hold a differing opinion, though, as I mentioned, nothing I’ve heard has convinced me to change mine.
That speaks to the substance of what’s behind the wiretap issue. The secondary issue is trust in the president. I have none left. This is another example of the president saying one thing (the quote about a wiretap requiring a court order) and doing another. Another example is claiming that hunting down Osama Bin Laden after September 11, 2001, was a primary goal, then saying at a press conference a year or more later that Osama Bin Laden didn’t matter, then denying that he had said that when Kerry called him on it during a debate (I don’t have the exact dates or links to video clips, but I remember it distinctly, because my jaw dropped when he said that Bin Laden didn’t really matter).
This is also one of countless examples of actions that the current administration has taken that show the enormous amount of hubris that it has. “We’re right, and we’re doing it for your own good, so the fact that we’re not following existing law is immaterial.” Cathwood has a quote in her signature that I thought was great the first time I saw it, so I looked it up on the web, and I like the entire quote even more:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” --C. S. Lewis
I’d have to disagree once again. I think that, by and large, the actions of our current administration here in the U.S. have the overall effect of providing the appearance of a more free and safe America, when in fact all they provide is a more solid foundation for future well-meaning autocrats to take away more and more of the liberties that we’ve already worked so hard to obtain.
Another of my favorite quotes: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” --Benjamin Franklin
Rich
