Monday, January 09, 2006
A Devestating Point
Mark Steyn made a point in the Sunday Chicago Sun-Times that I am not sure enough people think about
The fear of interception comes from two sources, one understandable, the other not. The understandable source is the activities of repressive nations like the former Soviet Union. Having visited that place it was a bit disconcerting to know that every conversation one had was listened to -- in some hotels they did not even bother to hide the bugs. But even then, it was only a problem because of what consituted a crime there. Uttering "Gorby's a jerk" could have gotten me kicked out of the country in a matter of hours, and if a citizen, well, "Hello gulag." That was the real problem, the oppressive nature of the government.
But in the US, the standard for offense is quite a bit higher. No, in the US the fear of interception is born of the huge number of people that actually are engaged in illicit activity. I don't think anyone objects to wiretaps of terrorists, save those with a political point to make, but they fear wiretaps in general because of how many people cheat on their taxes, buy marijuana , call escort services, or other illegal, but often overlooked criminal activity. Overlooked because of how diificult enforcement of these laws are in this nation.
Now, I am not proposing wiretaps as a law enforcement tool for such relatively petty crime, but what I am suggestng is that when people waste so much time and energy fighting communication interception in a very limited and justifiable set of circumstances, we ought to ask them what they are really afraid of.
Most of them would respond with civil liberties goobelty-gook, and if pressed you might find some long past indiscretion that creates a fear in them -- you could with me.
But the bottom line is that is just the facade. This is a political fight - This is one party attempting to paint the other as evil. And what is awful about it is they are doing so by playing on the fears of those in our society that enagage in borderline illegal and genuinely illicit activity. They are promoting, in a most incidious way, a lowering of the standard of normal civil conduct - all for the sake of getting elected.
Government is intended to raise the level of prosperity and civility for all, but it seems our leadership is willing to abandon that goal for the sake of having the power of government for itself. Isn't that the definition of dictatorial oppression?
It's very hard to fight a terrorist war without intelligence. By definition, you can only win battles against terrorists pre-emptively -- that's to say, you find out what they're planning to do next Thursday and you stop it cold on Wednesday. Capturing them on Friday while you're still pulling your dead from the rubble is poor consolation.If we oppose doing what is necessary, including communications interecepts, to catch terrorists, then we say that certain losses of life are acceptable, that those lives are less valuable than our right to uninterecepted communication. Now, our rights in this nation are vitally important, and worth dying for, but interecepted communication is only an issue for those that are engaged in illegal, piratical, or warring activity.
The fear of interception comes from two sources, one understandable, the other not. The understandable source is the activities of repressive nations like the former Soviet Union. Having visited that place it was a bit disconcerting to know that every conversation one had was listened to -- in some hotels they did not even bother to hide the bugs. But even then, it was only a problem because of what consituted a crime there. Uttering "Gorby's a jerk" could have gotten me kicked out of the country in a matter of hours, and if a citizen, well, "Hello gulag." That was the real problem, the oppressive nature of the government.
But in the US, the standard for offense is quite a bit higher. No, in the US the fear of interception is born of the huge number of people that actually are engaged in illicit activity. I don't think anyone objects to wiretaps of terrorists, save those with a political point to make, but they fear wiretaps in general because of how many people cheat on their taxes, buy marijuana , call escort services, or other illegal, but often overlooked criminal activity. Overlooked because of how diificult enforcement of these laws are in this nation.
Now, I am not proposing wiretaps as a law enforcement tool for such relatively petty crime, but what I am suggestng is that when people waste so much time and energy fighting communication interception in a very limited and justifiable set of circumstances, we ought to ask them what they are really afraid of.
Most of them would respond with civil liberties goobelty-gook, and if pressed you might find some long past indiscretion that creates a fear in them -- you could with me.
But the bottom line is that is just the facade. This is a political fight - This is one party attempting to paint the other as evil. And what is awful about it is they are doing so by playing on the fears of those in our society that enagage in borderline illegal and genuinely illicit activity. They are promoting, in a most incidious way, a lowering of the standard of normal civil conduct - all for the sake of getting elected.
Government is intended to raise the level of prosperity and civility for all, but it seems our leadership is willing to abandon that goal for the sake of having the power of government for itself. Isn't that the definition of dictatorial oppression?
