Libertarians and Barack Obama critics are up in arms over the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation authority to gain records of phone calls, emails, voice mails, and all other evidence that could possibly prevent future terrorist attacks, claiming it is a loss of the right to privacy, and that privacy should overrule public safety and national security.
But, as much as this author wishes we lived in a world without terrorism, the reality is that the number one priority of the government is to promote public safety and national security, and if one is NOT engaged in terrorist or criminal activity, what do we have to hide from the government? Why such a protest if nothing we are doing is illegal?
Believe me, after Benghazi, we see the reaction because we failed to stop a terrorist attack, but now some of the same critics are trying to stop the government from protecting Americans on the false idea that somehow, we all have something to hide, and that the government should not be able to track terrorist or criminal actions, in the name of that privacy.
When we discover, however, that liberals from Diane Feinstein on the left to Lindsey Graham on the right, and all of the Intelligence Committee members of the US House of Representatives and US Senate knew about this, and approved of it, the screams and yells of people such as Rand Paul, who lives in his own fantasy world, ring hollow, as making a person such as him our President would undermine our public safety and national security, and we are not about to do such a stupid thing as to consider such a wing nut as Paul for the Presidency!
It is better to do what the NSA and FBI are doing, than it was to torture suspects in the way that George W. Bush promoted, as it will protect our nation, and yet uphold our belief in international law and common decency by the banning of torture methods which produce little substantial evidence, but shame us in the eyes of the world!
In history, Barack Obama will be seen as doing what was necessary and essential, just as much as Abraham Lincoln was bitterly attacked during the Civil War, but is now seen as justified in his restrictions on civil liberties!
When 9/11 happened, we Americans wanted to be supremely safe. We did not ask the question as to what would be required to make that happen. Personally, I think the attackers fulfilled their mission. They diminished our freedoms and turned us against one another. We are better than this. Fear should not dictate our actions.
I completely agree with your comment, Professor, that, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
For those that don’t like this, instead of whining about it on Facebook, Twitter, etc., all they have to do is contact their Congress representatives and push them to repeal the Patriot Act.
I disagree with the professor. President Obama has advanced the national security and military industrial complex so reviled by his Republican predecessor. The fight against terrorism is a losing one because terrorism happens, in part, due to access. What we are getting in the U.S. is destruction of our freedoms with the propogandistic language formulated to persuade the paranoid masses to believe we’re constantly vulnerable to attacks. The United States is the number-one superpower in the world when it comes to our military. We can crush pretty all other countries. I am among those who believe that, ever since at least the 1963 assassination of the 35th president of the United States, it has been rather easy (and, at times, convenient) for the real powerful political and militarial factions of the country to manipulate us emotionally to get its way on just about anything that previously seemed inconceivable, including unnecessary wars. We had Vietnam. Then there was Iraq. So, get ready for something else. It’s just that some leeway (time passing) has to give.
Ron: There are many reasons why you,as well as Democrats and establishment “moderate” statist Republicans, are absolutely wrong on this. But I will only give you just one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbLX7_ezkK8&feature=player_embedded
Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois asks the attorney general if he’s spying on members of Congress and thereby giving the executive branch leverage over the legislative branch. Eric Holder answers:
“With all due respect, senator, I don’t think this is an appropriate setting for me to discuss that issue.â€
Senator Kirk responded that “the correct answer would be, ‘No, we stayed within our lane and I’m assuring you we did not spy on members of Congress.’†For some reason, the attorney general felt unable to say that. So I think we all know what the answer to the original question really is.
“We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.†– JFK
“When the state has the power to know everything about everyone, the integrity of the civil service is the only bulwark against men like Holder. Instead, the ruling party and the non-partisan bureaucracy seem to be converging. In August 2010, President Obama began railing publicly against “groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity†(August 9th, a speech in Texas) and “shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names†(August 21st, radio address). And whaddayaknow, that self-same month the IRS obligingly issued its first BOLO (Be On the Look-Out) for groups with harmless-sounding names, like “tea party,†“patriot,†and “constitution.â€
It may be that the strange synchronicity between the president and the permanent bureaucracy is mere happenstance and not, as it might sound to the casual ear, the sinister merging of party and state. Either way, they need to be pried apart. When the state has the capability to know everything except the difference between right and wrong, it won’t end well.” – Mark Steyn
“so reviled by his Republican predecessor”
WITH (not “by)
(Sorry about that.)
“So we know the IRS is corrupt. What happens then when an ambitious government understands it can yoke that corruption to its political needs? What’s striking as the revelations multiply and metastasize is that at no point does any IRS official appear to have raised objections. If any of them understood that what they were doing was wrong, they kept it to themselves. When Nixon tried to sic the IRS on a few powerful political enemies, the IRS told him to take a hike. When Obama’s courtiers tried to sic the IRS on thousands of ordinary American citizens, the agency went along, and very enthusiastically. This is a scale of depravity hitherto unknown to the tax authorities of the United States, and for that reason alone they should be disarmed and disbanded — and rebuilt from scratch with far more circumscribed powers.” – Mark Steyn
D,
The thing is terrorists are not countries. In my opinion, good intelligence rather than military might is the best way to protect our country from terrorists.
I think that putting some oversight in place so that this program can’t be abused by future presidents is not a bad idea.
Nothing in the Patriot Act authorizes the government-wide abuse of power by the IRS, EPA, FBI, DOJ, and other agencies with the coercive powers against Americans and foreigners. Not a phrase, or word in the Act authorizes such abuse of power.
Guano,
You can post all these conspiracies you wish to. None of us – except for Davy No Nothing – will ever take you seriously.
So, you are just wasting your time here on this blog.
Leia: Its very easy, just grab the Patriot Act and show us where it authorizes the government’s-wide abuse of power by the IRS, EPA, FBI, DOJ, and other agencies. Not that hard really.
Enjoy! http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/why-government-access-metadata-more-modest
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/06/06/why-the-government-wants-your-metadata/
Faux News doesn’t want a liberal telling the truth:
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/06/08/fox-news-cuts-mic-liberal-tells-truth-obama-scandals.html
Haha! This is hilarious: https://twitter.com/IIzThatIIz 🙂
Professor, Maggie, Engineer –
I will be heading out of town on family vacation tomorrow. You guys will have to deal with Guano and Davy No Nothing this week.
Based on Juan’s constant attacks over Benghazi, he would be the first to condemn Obama if another 9/11 occurred, so I take his outrage as pure politics, as no matter what Obama does or does not do, he will protest it, anyway. So Princess Leia, I choose not to waste my time answering his conspiracy theories and his belief in the evil of everything Obama represents. Meanwhile, a majority of the people know Obama has their back through thick and thin, and like Lincoln, is doing what needs to be done for public safety and national security!
I have always stated my firm belief in our Constitution no matter who is governing. A Constitution that is just as valid and governing in times of war as in times of peace, especially with regards to US citizens. I understand, as well as the majority of Americans, for the need of secrecy with regards to national security issues. But so far we have been able to maintain certain reasonableness and have limited the power of the Federal government to violate the rights of Americans, by way of the “clear and present danger” standard. It is one thing to have an NSA program of surveillance on international phone calls by Al Qaeda, it is quite another to surveillance not only the phone calls , but all internet interactions, of 300 million American citizens within the US. The former deals with FOREIGN terrorist the latter with LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Furthermore, unlike Lincoln, we are not in an internal Civil War, where the enemy of the Union, of the U.S. are fellow Americans who revolted and attacked the U.S.
But, once a constitutional principle is violated on the grounds of national security all limits are lost and the consequences are unforeseeable.Then years later when it is too late we remember it was all done in the name if national security.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esx53QF4YCM )
Finally, this is no conspiracy theory, this is just the reality of power which, if not limited, responds to its intrinsic nature that is governed by two laws:#1. Power always wants more power never less and #2. Power always wants more power for the most extended time period possible never less.
That is why to avoid tyranny and deal with law #1 the Founders divided power within the framework of our Constitution and why to deal with law #2 we later established the 22nd Amendment.
Juan, I want to make it clear that I fully believe in executive limits, am not a worshipper of Presidential power, and support fully the 22nd Amendment, as no President is indispensable. However, I fully trust our President to be conscious of avoiding abuse of his powers. At the same time, I cannot disagree with D above on June 8, that we must be cautious about giving too much power over civil liberties, and am aware that in the future, we might have a President who I do not trust, much like you feel about Obama. So while supporting the President on this, I realize we are in a quandary that COULD hit us on the side of the head, so to speak, in the future. The problem is how to protect this nation and keep our liberties, and that will require wisdom in who we pick for the White House in the future.
Under your point of view, you are ok with the situation because you trust the man currently in the White House. Well our system is based exactly upon the opposite principle, which, the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Man. Just because you trust him doesn’t mean half of the country does. As a matter of fact half of the country doesn’t. This also works the other way around. When Bush was President half the country didn’t trust him either. So as to avoid this , we have the Rule of Law. Which is basically based on the principle that man in general cannot be trusted with unlimited power, whether you trust him or not and no matter who he is. Personally I do not trust any man or group of men to hold such powers.
Juan, you hit a home run here, as when I read what you wrote above, it made me think about the dangers of supporting an idea because one agrees with the person in power, but then the danger when a person one opposes uses the same power in a way that is objectionable. So I will have to agree with the rule of law over the rule of man, and reconsider the view that I had expressed. Let’s say I am open to change on this issue, as time goes by and I have more time to reflect on it. I will use the excuse that I am on vacation in Toronto, and not following the news as completely as I would if home, so I will have to give this whole matter more thought, and I thank you for precipitating a reconsideration of this issue on my part!
Enjoy your vacation Ron. It’s good to forget about politics for a few days. Life is more than politics and as far as I know we only have one life to enjoy!
Thanks for your sentiments, Juan. I have paid tribute to you in my one entry this morning. And yes, Politics is my passion, but it is good to escape from it now and then! 🙂 And I hope there is another life after this, as often this world seems hellish! 🙁