“Only Terrorists Need to Worry”
By Anthony | June 26th, 2006 | 10:47 pmIn discussing issues surrounding the NSA eavesdropping scandal and the more recent revelations about the monitoring of financial transactions, I’ve heard people argue that as long as a person isn’t a terrorist, he has nothing to worry about, and shouldn’t complain about the programs. This argument completely misses the point.
If that’s really the litmus test, then any government action becomes permissible. The federal government begins reading everyone’s mail? What are you worrried about, unless you’re talking to terrorists? Bush orders the FBI to perform warrantless searches of every home within major cities? Only criminals have cause for concern. Government agents break into homes at random and hide cameras and microphones throughout? Only a terrorist would complain about that.
Obviously, those are (hopefully) extreme examples, but the point is that the issue shouldn’t be whether you actually have cause to be concerned about being caught doing something, but rather the issue should be whether the actions in question are legal and Constitutional. Objecting to complaints because only criminals should be worried is a bankrupt argument that suggests a person doesn’t have any other defense for the action in question. It also ignores a long history of governmental abuse and deception which serve to point out that it isn’t only the criminals and terrorists who need to be concerned.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Hey. I made that point before. I mean, if criminals are the only ones to worry, then I suppose it’s okay for agencies to have cameras in every home like the eye-in-the-sky at the casinos. Don’t worry about you having an intimate moment with your wife. No one will be watching if you’re not a criminal.
Uhh.
Yeah.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:35 am
Did you? I figured someone must have said it already. Well, it’s such a lame attempt at an argument that it’s worth pointing out its inanity multiple times. Jaycee was just making use of it over on Bubba’s blog, but I couldn’t bring myself to comment over there again – it seems to be a waste of time due to the anti-logic force field that surrounds the area.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
I went a round with jaycee at Lex’s recently over this. I got nowhere with him.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Yep, Jaycee totally misses the point of the argument that I attempted to make over there. History has taught us that power corrupts. Washington is not a place that demonstrates restraint and most intelligent people already know this. Without rule of law (subpoenas, search warrants, etc.) those in power are free to abuse the system. And don’t think it has not happened already, it has with the simple existence of the domestic surveillance program. A very program whose constitutionality is a mockery of the United States’ system of checks and balances. I pray the American people wake up from this right-wing coma Bush and Co. have induced on the country. A coma of fear uncertainty and doubt. Its all a bit too much like John Carpenter’s “They Live!” for me. Obey. Comply. Sleep.
June 27th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
I heard Rush say today that the NYT article was an attempt to achieve prosecution. He believes Keller et al would love a day in court to champion their first amendment rights and that BushCo will not bite. I wonder if there is any truth in this.
June 27th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
He was saying that the NYT wants to get prosecuted for this? Sounds unlikely. I would think that having to battle it out in court would cut into their bottom line quite a bit. They are a business, after all.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:01 am
I think he was trying to find the logic of DOJ’s failure to indict. And he probably does have inside intel.
BTW, he seemed completely unphased by his Customs detention last night.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:50 am
[…] Plead the First Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of an unnecessary blog, or prohibiting the free posting therein. « “Only Terrorists Need to Worry” […]