There has been a firestorm over the last couple days over Barack Obama's choice to vote for a bill in Congress. The bill will give communications companies that complied with President Bush's request to illegally wiretap terror suspects immunity from lawsuit. It is an update of FISA, the federal surveillance bill that has caused all the controversy dealing with Bush's wiretapping following the 9/11 attacks in order to keep track of terror suspects within the United States.
Liberals within Congress and within public in general have accosted Obama for what they see as a "sellout" of his values. They accuse him of being compliant with what they see as illegal activities by Bush. They claim that the United States citizen's rights to be free and clear from federal surveillance is more important than providing better security.
The flip side of the argument is that with the wiretapping, the Government is able to have more intelligence on possible terror suspects and hopefully prevent another attack on the scale of 9/11 from happening. As President Bush explained, the bill
will help help us meet our most solemn responsibility: to stop another attack.
My question is, what IS the Government's most solemn responsibility? Should they be more worried about upholding the rights of the people and the Constitution or protecting the people from a possible terror attack. Should they worry more about keeping people happy or keeping people safe? Are those two ideas mutually exclusive? Do we really need to make a choice between safety and the Constitution? Has Barack Obama "sold out?"
Let me know what you think in the comments section.
1 comments:
As Ben Franklin said (to paraphrase, as i've seen it written many ways), "He who is willing to give up a little liberty to gain a litte security deserves neither and will lose both."
I think that this quote rings true in most situations. When you give up your liberties, you lose them both for yourself and future generations, as the abilities of the authorities have historically grown, not decrease, while the threat is temporary. So it should be thought about carefully if it is worth giving up your liberty for security (totally opposite of the way the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act was passed).
Also, it's an interesting question as to whether giving up that liberty is the only way to get security, or if it will even get you any at all. Would money be better spent by tracking people's phone calls and emails, or by increasing the amount of law enforcement on patrol in certain areas? Or giving training to people for first aid and emergency preparedness? Or simply increasing the security at government sites, by adding personnel or equipment? I don't know how much was spent on the wiretapping, but I assume it was substantial.
Anyways, you just have to be wary as to whether the government is trying to keep you safe, or if politicians are just trying to take advantage of your fear to expand their powers. Now I'm not saying that the government is always evil, but it would be naive to think that no politicians are interested in expanding the power of the government and of themselves. We, the people, have to be wary of that, and speak out if we think our rights our being violated (not saying that the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act in particular is infringing on our rights).
So, to sum it all up, I think that it's possible to keep the country secure without infringing on people's liberty. Happiness and safety are not mutually exclusive, although some people will try to make it seem that they are, to get you to go along with them.
Post a Comment