The words of the legendary Phil Ochs song ring through my head after listening to more news on the wiretapping scandal today; the irony of “fighting for democracy” by tearing apart it’s foundations piece by piece is overwhelming me.
Oh, I guess I should have started this with a warning: it has been suggested that I not write any “controversial” posts on here anymore, because they may make some people uncomfortable or uneasy. Personally, I think that most of the people (which I know personally) that read this blog are probably wise and mature enough people to not let my opinions on a given subject interfere with their opinion of me as a person, or of our relationships, but if you’re not one of those kind of people, then you may not want to read the rest of this one.
I have to say that I was shocked to hear about the fact that the New York Times knew about the illegal monitoring for over a year, and finally decided to break the story this month, even after the white house (actually the President, in person) requested specifically that they not run the story. The fact that they did (eventually) is commendable, but waiting so long is absolutely journalistic negligence in my book.
The whole argument behind the practice (that of going after terrorists) just doesn’t hold water at all. The government has always had the ability to wiretap, and the warrants were not hard to obtain (assuming there was any shred of evidence or suspicion). What they are trying to avoid with this new technique is the requirement that they must provide notification of the fact that the monitoring has occurred, within a reasonable amount of time after it has. The existing laws regarding wiretapping already give them all the power they need to “fight / prevent terrorism”, they just don’t want that kind of accountability that is currently required after the fact.
What’s even more outrageous is the outright lying that the administration has been involved in. They are currently admitting to (and defending) this practice that has been uncovered of wiretapping without warrants, but listen to this excerpt of a speech by the president (quoted directly from the White House web site) from April 20th, 2004:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
Note: this speech is occurring at a point in time during which we now know the NSA had been doing wiretaps without court orders for a couple years, on the direct order of the president himself, and here he is saying explicitly the opposite. Of course, I’m sure there are a lot of people out there who won’t acknowledge this as a lie, but I don’t know how much clearer it can get.
In case you’re wondering how this all ties into the quote from the Phil Ochs tune, I’m just wondering what kind of governmental practices that the unquestioning supporters of our government won’t put up with. What will it take to make them stand up and object to this stuff? We’ve got constitutional protections regarding privacy and free speech being tossed out left an right, while at the same time we’ve got people being taken into custody for years on end with no due process, or even as much as being charged with a crime, and having them shipped off to secret detention facilities. There is the denial of torture being applied at such facilities, but at the same time we’ve already seen evidence of it in some places and we’ve got an administration that is vigorously opposing any ban on the use of torture on these prisoners. My question: is this the kind of America that we’re supposedly “fighting for”? I don’t think so, yet it’s what we’ve become in the process.
10 Comments
Who is Phil Ochs?
A great folk singer / songwriter of the 60’s. I thought you may have remembered him…
For Dave (and anyone else not familiar with the song reference):
It’s your blog- write what you want! Who cares if not everyone agrees with you all the time. I wouldn’t want anyone telling me that they don’t want me to put something on my blog. Isn’t your’s called “Free Press”???? Are you being censored, Jared? Are you becoming that which you protest against?
Just wondering….
Was Phil in a group? Didn’t know the folk groups/people.
The only song I kind of remember with the lyrics ” what are we fighting for…” was from Country Joe and the Fish at woodstock.
It was me who told him that. I was just wondering how come no one ever discusses these things in person? I never hear the boys arguing politics when we are together.
The power of the pen; the safety of the internet. Wow, I’m deep.
I’m not being censored, I just didn’t mention Martha by name because I didn’t know if she wanted everyone to know it was her that made the comment. She wasn’t saying I shouldn’t do it, she just suggested that it might make some people uncomfortable. While I guess it might a little bit, I’m still going to write about what I feel, and like I said above, I think everyone here is mature enough to handle it well. It’s not like I would ever not like someone just because they don’t agree with me on some issues; in fact most of my friends probably disagree with me on a lot of this stuff, and that doesn’t really bother me.
As for why I generally avoid talking about it in person, I think I’ve been over this issue a lot on here before, but to recap (for the new readers), there are some discussions that I feel are better had in writing, particularly ones that can potentially involve very “heated” emotional involvement. I’m perfectly comfortable talking about stuff in person, but when you have these kinds of “controversial” discussions verbally, they generally quickly degrade into arguments, whereas if it is in writing, both parties can read, then re-read and make sure they understand what they other has really said (in the full context, as opposed to latching onto one phrase and then waiting for their turn to talk instead of listening to the whole thing), then take some time to cool down if necessary, and write a reasonable response that doesn’t make them look like an idiot or escalate into a shouting match, etc. Doesn’t always happen that way, but I think it’s better than the alternative.
Dave, I’m pretty sure Phil was a solo act, or at least I’ve only ever heard stuff with him and his guitar. You can check into a bit of his history in the Wikipedia link in my first comment back to you (@3:16)
I like to do my reading the same as I do my conversations: scan, misunderstand, get angry, shoot fromt he hip, think, reconsider, retract, restate, lecture, walk away, forget it. It’s a great system.
I remember Phil Ochs. He was a hippy. I wasn’t allowed to hang with guys like him.