This Just In To Fox News...
Hello again loyal readers. I trust that everyone is doing well.
Today's post concerns something I heard on Fox News yesterday (21 DEC 05).
I was watching Fox News yesterday afternoon. They had on a news discussion show (I don't recall the title) in which they present the days news and allow audience members to participate in a discussion of the day's events. As I watched, a young lady in the audience got up and made a comment. The comment was in reference to Bush's authorization of the NSA to conduct domestic spying without court oversight. When asked what she thought, the woman replied, "The only ones who have something to worry about are those with something to hide." This struck me as being a hideously ignorant comment (ignorant of the real issues at hand, that is) until I realized that Fox News is not "Fair and Balanced" as their tagline states, but rather tilted toward the Neo-Conservative viewpoint. In fact Fox News is so tilted toward the Neo-Cons that they should change their name to the Neo-Con News Network. Of course that would probably get them sued by CNN as Fox's new "call letters" would be NCNN. I also think that they should change their tagline from "Fair and Balanced" to "Whatever The Bush Administration Wants You to Hear" or "All Government Approved News, All The Time" (of course they'd probably get sued by Pravda for using the latter tag).
Having said that, my purpose in writing this is not to bash Fox News (I actually kind of like Neil Cavutto's business show), but to address the appalling ignorance of the woman's statement.
The woman making the statement can't really be faulted for feeling the way she does. She was merely parroting a sentiment that the Bush Administration and The Republicans have been spouting for the last 3 or 4 years. "Gee, Mr. President, what about the erosion of civil liberties under the Patriot Act?" "The only one's who need worry are those with something to hide." "Gosh, Mr. President, don't you think that domestic spying without court oversight is not only a bad idea, but downright illegal?" "No. The only ones who have something to worry about are those with something to hide." "Gee, Chancellor Hitler, isn't locking up all of the Jews and other non-conformists a bad idea, not to mention a violation of their human rights?" "No. The only ones who have something to worry about are those with something to hide." You see where I am going with this?
"Those with something to hide" aren't the only ones with something to worry about. You, the average America, should be worrying also. This departure from the rule of law is perhaps the most troubling of all of the developments during Bush's reign as president (or wannabe dictator, your choice). The Patriot Act, in all of its repugnance, is a law. It was approved by Congress, and it can be repealed by Congress (with enough popular pressure). The NSA spying was authorized by EXECUTIVE ORDER, Congress cannot repeal an executive order. The only person who can repeal or withdrawl an executive order is the president. Now given that this president authorized this order, I highly doubt he is going to recind it. This particular order is troubling in the fact that, heretofore, spying on American citizens was conducted by either the Secret Service, or the FBI, and then only after receiving judicial approval! The NSA spying has neither asked, nor recieved, any judicial approval, not even from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)(the secret intelligence court)! As a matter of fact, the Washington Post has reported that one of the judges on the FISC has resigned in protest over the spying citing the fact the information gather may have been used to obtain tainted FISA warrants (tainted due to the lack of judicial oversight).
The problem with all of this domestic spying isn't that it is aimed at catching terrorists. The problem with it is that it represents, and embodies, a blatant disregard for the Constitution and the safeguards contained therein. The Constitution's Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Now I don't know about you, but what that means to me is that the government shall not come into my house and look around for illegal things without first having probable cause and, second, a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment is, essentially, both a limitation on the government's powers and a safeguard for the people. It limits the government's powers in that, without probable cause, they can't get a judicial order to enter your house, and without a warrant based upon that probable cause, you can deny the government entry to your home. It also safeguards you against governmental harrassment at your residence, not to mention that it stops over eager, under intelligent, and just downright nosy cops (and other government agents) from entering your house "just to see if you're up to no good". By ordering the NSA to spy on Americans without judicial oversight, the Bush Administration has pretty much thrown the Constitution out when it comes to catching terrorists here in the US. By engaging in this activity, the Bush Administration has shown that it will let nothing, not even the US Constitution, stand in the way of its wholesale attempt to seize unchecked power. Bush claims that the spying was prompted by his desire to catch terrorists. Might I remind the President that, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." No matter what your intent, as the President, you, above all people, must respect the rule of law, especially the Constitution (which, by the way, you are sworn to uphold). By tossing away one Amendment, you are essentially tossing them all away. Upholding the Constitution is an "all or none" proposition. One cannot just arbitrarily choose which Amendments one wishes to uphold and disregard the rest.
This administration has thrown away, violated, and just plain ignored our Constitutional rights for far too long. We, the average citizens, have a right and a duty to call them on it. We have a duty to see to it that those rights are restored. The Constitution allows us to do this by any means necessary. I personally prefer the ballot box, but you can decide your own path. My concern with this whole thing is, if we allow the government to just toss away the protections of one amendment, how long will it be before they decide that another amendment is "just in the way" and discard it? Which Constitutional Amendment will it be next? The First so as to shut up "troublemakers" and "rabblerousers" like me, or the New York Times? Maybe the Second, that way the populace can't fight back with anything BUT words. Ah, the hell with the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, now we can force you to testify against yourself, and we can torture you too (whoops, they already did do away with the Eighth. See CIA torture of terrorist suspects). The Sixth Amendment is already gone by virtue of the Patriot Act and the fact that domestic terrorist suspects are now considered "special enemy combatants" and, therefore, not entitled to the luxury of an impartial trial by a jury of their peers. Nine and Ten are already gone too. Nine says that any rights not listed in the Constitution shall be construed as belonging to the people. And Ten actually states that the individual States (or people) retain all the rights not given to the Federal Government. Silly States, thinking that they have rights, tsk, tsk, tsk. I left out amendment Three dealing with the quartering of soldiers in private houses as it seems to me that, since the members of the National Guard most likely own those private houses, and since the only military option we seem to have anymore is the National Guard (the regular Army seems to have all quit, or at least most of it [not the Army's fault, see defense cuts, ill advised miltary adventures {aka Iraq War}, and problems recruiting]), this wasn't really an issue. However, the issue at hand is how are we, the average American citizen, going to react? Are we going to finally stand up and say enough is enough and take back our Constitutionally guaranteed rights? Or are we going to react as the woman on the Fox News show did and say, "The only ones who have something to worry about are those with something to hide"?
I know what choice I am making. And if believing that the US Constitution is both inviolable and the highest law of the land makes me an enemy of the Bush Administration and the powers that be...so be it. But I shall remind the powers that be that being a patriot is neither a crime, nor is it defeatist (see Bush Speech, 18 DEC 05), nor is it terrorism.
As always, I am Chuck and this has been my rant.
Today's post concerns something I heard on Fox News yesterday (21 DEC 05).
I was watching Fox News yesterday afternoon. They had on a news discussion show (I don't recall the title) in which they present the days news and allow audience members to participate in a discussion of the day's events. As I watched, a young lady in the audience got up and made a comment. The comment was in reference to Bush's authorization of the NSA to conduct domestic spying without court oversight. When asked what she thought, the woman replied, "The only ones who have something to worry about are those with something to hide." This struck me as being a hideously ignorant comment (ignorant of the real issues at hand, that is) until I realized that Fox News is not "Fair and Balanced" as their tagline states, but rather tilted toward the Neo-Conservative viewpoint. In fact Fox News is so tilted toward the Neo-Cons that they should change their name to the Neo-Con News Network. Of course that would probably get them sued by CNN as Fox's new "call letters" would be NCNN. I also think that they should change their tagline from "Fair and Balanced" to "Whatever The Bush Administration Wants You to Hear" or "All Government Approved News, All The Time" (of course they'd probably get sued by Pravda for using the latter tag).
Having said that, my purpose in writing this is not to bash Fox News (I actually kind of like Neil Cavutto's business show), but to address the appalling ignorance of the woman's statement.
The woman making the statement can't really be faulted for feeling the way she does. She was merely parroting a sentiment that the Bush Administration and The Republicans have been spouting for the last 3 or 4 years. "Gee, Mr. President, what about the erosion of civil liberties under the Patriot Act?" "The only one's who need worry are those with something to hide." "Gosh, Mr. President, don't you think that domestic spying without court oversight is not only a bad idea, but downright illegal?" "No. The only ones who have something to worry about are those with something to hide." "Gee, Chancellor Hitler, isn't locking up all of the Jews and other non-conformists a bad idea, not to mention a violation of their human rights?" "No. The only ones who have something to worry about are those with something to hide." You see where I am going with this?
"Those with something to hide" aren't the only ones with something to worry about. You, the average America, should be worrying also. This departure from the rule of law is perhaps the most troubling of all of the developments during Bush's reign as president (or wannabe dictator, your choice). The Patriot Act, in all of its repugnance, is a law. It was approved by Congress, and it can be repealed by Congress (with enough popular pressure). The NSA spying was authorized by EXECUTIVE ORDER, Congress cannot repeal an executive order. The only person who can repeal or withdrawl an executive order is the president. Now given that this president authorized this order, I highly doubt he is going to recind it. This particular order is troubling in the fact that, heretofore, spying on American citizens was conducted by either the Secret Service, or the FBI, and then only after receiving judicial approval! The NSA spying has neither asked, nor recieved, any judicial approval, not even from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)(the secret intelligence court)! As a matter of fact, the Washington Post has reported that one of the judges on the FISC has resigned in protest over the spying citing the fact the information gather may have been used to obtain tainted FISA warrants (tainted due to the lack of judicial oversight).
The problem with all of this domestic spying isn't that it is aimed at catching terrorists. The problem with it is that it represents, and embodies, a blatant disregard for the Constitution and the safeguards contained therein. The Constitution's Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Now I don't know about you, but what that means to me is that the government shall not come into my house and look around for illegal things without first having probable cause and, second, a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment is, essentially, both a limitation on the government's powers and a safeguard for the people. It limits the government's powers in that, without probable cause, they can't get a judicial order to enter your house, and without a warrant based upon that probable cause, you can deny the government entry to your home. It also safeguards you against governmental harrassment at your residence, not to mention that it stops over eager, under intelligent, and just downright nosy cops (and other government agents) from entering your house "just to see if you're up to no good". By ordering the NSA to spy on Americans without judicial oversight, the Bush Administration has pretty much thrown the Constitution out when it comes to catching terrorists here in the US. By engaging in this activity, the Bush Administration has shown that it will let nothing, not even the US Constitution, stand in the way of its wholesale attempt to seize unchecked power. Bush claims that the spying was prompted by his desire to catch terrorists. Might I remind the President that, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." No matter what your intent, as the President, you, above all people, must respect the rule of law, especially the Constitution (which, by the way, you are sworn to uphold). By tossing away one Amendment, you are essentially tossing them all away. Upholding the Constitution is an "all or none" proposition. One cannot just arbitrarily choose which Amendments one wishes to uphold and disregard the rest.
This administration has thrown away, violated, and just plain ignored our Constitutional rights for far too long. We, the average citizens, have a right and a duty to call them on it. We have a duty to see to it that those rights are restored. The Constitution allows us to do this by any means necessary. I personally prefer the ballot box, but you can decide your own path. My concern with this whole thing is, if we allow the government to just toss away the protections of one amendment, how long will it be before they decide that another amendment is "just in the way" and discard it? Which Constitutional Amendment will it be next? The First so as to shut up "troublemakers" and "rabblerousers" like me, or the New York Times? Maybe the Second, that way the populace can't fight back with anything BUT words. Ah, the hell with the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, now we can force you to testify against yourself, and we can torture you too (whoops, they already did do away with the Eighth. See CIA torture of terrorist suspects). The Sixth Amendment is already gone by virtue of the Patriot Act and the fact that domestic terrorist suspects are now considered "special enemy combatants" and, therefore, not entitled to the luxury of an impartial trial by a jury of their peers. Nine and Ten are already gone too. Nine says that any rights not listed in the Constitution shall be construed as belonging to the people. And Ten actually states that the individual States (or people) retain all the rights not given to the Federal Government. Silly States, thinking that they have rights, tsk, tsk, tsk. I left out amendment Three dealing with the quartering of soldiers in private houses as it seems to me that, since the members of the National Guard most likely own those private houses, and since the only military option we seem to have anymore is the National Guard (the regular Army seems to have all quit, or at least most of it [not the Army's fault, see defense cuts, ill advised miltary adventures {aka Iraq War}, and problems recruiting]), this wasn't really an issue. However, the issue at hand is how are we, the average American citizen, going to react? Are we going to finally stand up and say enough is enough and take back our Constitutionally guaranteed rights? Or are we going to react as the woman on the Fox News show did and say, "The only ones who have something to worry about are those with something to hide"?
I know what choice I am making. And if believing that the US Constitution is both inviolable and the highest law of the land makes me an enemy of the Bush Administration and the powers that be...so be it. But I shall remind the powers that be that being a patriot is neither a crime, nor is it defeatist (see Bush Speech, 18 DEC 05), nor is it terrorism.
As always, I am Chuck and this has been my rant.
posted by Chuck | 01:42
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home