Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Should Government Be More Important Than A Citizen's Rights?

Brandon Smith does a really great job discussing the challenge of protecting individual rights while still preserving secrets of the nation.  This is not an easily solved conundrum. However, it is the one facing the US today.

Whether Snowden is a traitor or a hero is  the essence of the question. Until  the facts behind the data release, we will not know which he is. However, when the politicians from both parties demand his trial as a criminal, we have second thoughts.  What are they protecting?


What are your thoughts?

Conservative Tom


Is The Safety Of The State Really Worth More Than The Truth?

July 16, 2013 by  
Is The Safety Of The State Really Worth More Than The Truth?
PHOTOS.COM
It’s a strange and terrible tragedy when a culture forgets its own history and identity. It is even more tragic when that culture becomes deluded enough to think it can replace its heritage from scratch, that it can conjure political and social reformations out of thin air and abandon the centuries upon centuries of accomplishment and failures of generations past. To think that one can live without the lessons and principles of one’s ancestors is a disease — a mental disorder of the highest caliber. It is an insanity that leads to terrifying catastrophe.
There is no such thing as “starting over” or “rising anew.” There is no such thing as pure and unadulterated “change.” All shifts in human civilization are a product of that which has come before; and, therefore, each of these shifts retains the ideas, accomplishments and dreams of our forefathers. No matter how ingenious we think we are today, most grand schemes and wondrous plans for the world have already been discovered, rediscovered and applied over and over again by industrious men, great men and even nefarious men century after century.
Unique ideas are very rare. The American republic, as a sociopolitical structure, is such an idea.
The concept of citizen self governance is extremely uncommon in the annals of humanity, namely because there has always been an establishment of elitists within any given epoch that has sought to destroy it. There have always been organizations of the power hungry who make it their mission to suppress free thought and free peoples, and these organizations certainly exist today.
Though we have been given an astonishing guide map in the form of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the establishment attempts to sell us on a very different value system. In their world, true self governance is impossible, because only the elect will ever receive the political and monetary support needed just to join the ranks of those who might be elected. The common man has no place within the halls of the Federal oligarchy, and the elite like it that way.
In their world, leaders do not owe allegiance to the citizenry. They do not answer to the public. They do as they wish, whenever they wish. And as long as they can wrap their tyranny in the costumes of so-called patriotism, justice or safety of the masses, they can continue uninterrupted. The system is their playground, not ours.
Those people allowed to operate as government employees are treated as indentured servants of the state. Their first loyalties, the government claims, are not to Americans, but to the corporate apparatus that America has become. That is to say, they are supposed to protect the integrity of the system before they protect the lives and liberties of the people.
CIA Director John Brennan’s “Honor the Oath” campaign makes this position clear. InBrennan’s words, the oath government employees take is not to the Constitution, but to the “corporate culture of secrecy.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein’s response to the Snowden leaks on National Security Agency mass surveillance is also rather revealing in regard to how the establishment views the exposure of truths, especially when those truths involve the government’s systematic targeting of innocent Americans. The Hill reported:
“I don’t look at this as being a whistleblower. I think it’s an act of treason,” the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told reporters.
The California lawmaker went on to say that Snowden had violated his oath to defend the Constitution.
“He violated the oath, he violated the law. It’s treason.”
I would also point out that this same twisted viewpoint has been expressed by politicians on both sides of the aisle. Top Democrats and top Republicans want Snowden’s head on a platter.
Now I can see a certain (but very selective) logic to the belief that defending the government structure from attack is the same as defending the American public from attack. Undoubtedly, an outside force seeking to undermine our safety and our freedoms should be stopped; and some people believe we need watchmen to ensure this is done. However, what happens when the greatest threat to our way of life is coming from the watchmen themselves?
The Federal government was created by the Founding Fathers, begrudgingly, to serve one primary purpose: The defense of individual liberty. But what happens when the Federal government no longer pursues this function? What happens when the government becomes the very enemy it was designed to defend us against? Has it not then violated the charter that made it legal in the first place? And if so, should it not then be exposed and disbanded as a broken tool, a useless piece of hardware that no longer does any good for the people overall?
The problem is that the “watchmen” were institutionalized and bureaucratized. We were supposed to be the watchers and defenders, each and every one of us, but we handed over that power to elitist interests and secretive entities. We have handed over our eyes and our hands to men who care only for their own private societies and not American society. We have fallen asleep on the job and dark-minded doppelgängers have taken our place.
Even so, this does not mean our responsibilities have disappeared. As the actions of a handful of government whistle-blowers (including Snowden and Bradley Manning) have shown, the requirements of honor and conscience are not void simply because you now receive a government paycheck. In fact, for any government employee who considers himself honest and principled, whistle-blowing is not “treason,” as the White House would have us believe. Rather, it is a duty.
There are two kinds of law. The first is natural law; those laws follow the dictates of our hearts and our inborn moral compass. The Constitution upon which our nation was built is a perfect written representation of natural law. The second is self-serving law; those are the laws that one group of people in power use to control another group of people without power. Most legal structures that exist in writing today are sadly a product of self-serving law.
Legitimate treason is essentially the abandonment of the true well-being of one’s culture in order to gain something for oneself. Maybe the enticement is monetary, or maybe the enticement is to aid a foreign interest. Or maybe it is to satisfy a dangerously selfish ideological ego. In any case, the end result is severe harm to one’s homeland.
The question is: Is it “treason” to tell the truth to the American people? Is the truth harmful to our culture, or is it just harmful to the establishment? Is the survival of the establishment irreconcilably intertwined with the survival of our society, or is that only what they want us to think? If the establishment dies because it is revealed as corrupt, do we all die with it; or could we carry on without it?
As I pointed out before, without our heritage and our history, America fails to be. Without the lessons of the past, we are nothing. Our Federal government today has separated itself from the people and elevated itself to a godlike position in our personal lives, as many despotic governments throughout history have done. Our leadership has formed alliances with private elitist interests and forsaken their responsibilities  in an effort to cement their political dominance rather than protect the common good, the kind of action that has invariably led to the totalitarian monstrosities of the past. And our government has deemed a matter of national security, and thus sacrosanct, that which is moral “unimportant” or “dangerous” and that which is immoral. We are now expected to maintain “faith” in the benevolence and good graces of government and damn to hell the very voice within our souls. We are expected to pray for the continued longevity of the machine and rage against anyone who might enlighten us to the evil within it.
Many people who now work for the machine are not necessarily like the machine. They are not bent on the destruction of free civilization. They are not the enemy of life or the deeper good of man. But under the long-cast shadow of tyranny, the path they have chosen eventually ends; and it will end with an incalculably difficult decision: to do what is right or to do what is safe. To remember what it is our government is supposed to stand for or to forget all that came before.
Loyalty is not and never has been unconditional: loyalty to government most of all. Loyalty to the system is dependent upon the nature of the system and the people who sit at its apex. The system must reflect the higher aspirations of the society it seeks to manage or protect. It must be held to the highest possible standard and totally transparent in its nature. It is the job of government whistle-blowers to make this possible. If they do not, then criminality will remain painfully felt but officially unconfirmed. Our country will continue to crumble into fascist oblivion, and all that will be left for the citizenry is revolution.
We must remember what we believe in and allow that to be enough. Our fears, our biases and our superficial desires are all irrelevant. In the end, the only thing that matters is what we leave behind. For those within government today, this could mean a legacy of desperation and sadness or a legacy of strength, truth and enduring peace. Time is running out.

5 comments:

  1. You are right. A lot depends on how much Snowden gave to the Chinese to allow him to fly to Russia, and how much the Russians will expect in exchange for allowing him to stay there. You can bet an old KGB guy like Putin is not going to let this opportunity pass by. We will probably never know for sure, but if he did it, I would call that "treason."

    By my definition of "whistle-blower", you are only an whistle-blower if you are exposing some individual, corporation, or government engaging in illegal action. That doesn't qualify Snowden as any kind of whistle-blower. The PRISM program was publicly and legally authorized by Congress in 2007. Bush was already doing it (illegally) before 2007. Given how much Obama has continued -- and even escalated -- Bush's policies domestically and overseas (Iraq, Afghanistan, drone wars, etc.), PRISM should come as no surprise to anyone. Snowden just confirmed what you, I, and most others already assumed is happening.

    So, I would not use either the "treason" label nor the "whistle-blower". The best tag would be something like "criminal fugitive," since he has certainly broken federal laws and is a fugitive. I certainly would not use "hero", and neither should any "rule of law" conservative like you. If you don't like some law, you work to change it through advocacy and elections. That is how democracy works. Revolution is only a last resort when all else has failed.

    On an unrelated point, I was wondering how you are feeling about Egypt these days. A democratically elected government was overthrown by military coup, but since the government was Muslim Brotherhood, I figure you don't care so long as they end up with the Brotherhood out of power. Right? Would you support their right to participate in free democratic elections? They would probably win again. Are you OK with that, or would you prefer a new military dictator like Mubarak instead? Curious.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  2. I disagree with the characterization that Snowden is NOT a whistleblower. We did not know about PRISM. I may be a conservative but that does not mean that I believe the government should be all powerful doing whatever it wants irregarless of whom the President is. The Patriot Act was a mistake run through Congress when we were sure that we would be attacked weekly. I HAD NO IDEA THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS MONITORING EVERY EMAIL, TEXT, PHONE CONVERSATION INSIDE THE US. That was not in my thought process, especially after government officials said they were NOT doing it!

    Snowden did a public service . He could not go to his supervisors because it has been shown that people who whistle blow inside the government are made a scapegoat and are usually brought up on charges. Whether he could have done it another way might be debatable, but from what I have read, it appears pretty bleak if one spills your secrets to government officials.

    As far as Egypt. yes it was an elected government that was overthrown by the people who rebelled to the Sharia influence on the Morsi Administration. Millions were rioting in the street and the army had to do something to restore order. You call it a coup, but the army is the ONLY stabilizing force in this country, otherwise it would have torn itself apart like Syria.

    I am not so sure that the Muslim Brotherhood would win again. I would hope that the Egyptians realized that they do not want that type of government.

    One thing that you must understand about Egypt, there has been only a few years when this country has not been governed by a dictator who usually was part of the military. To expect a country with this history, to automatically become a Constitutional Republic is a bit foolhardy. People used to one system cannot change on a dime and accept another.

    Additionally, in the Middle East there is only one democracy that being Israel. The rest are governed by dictators (Syria and Saudi Arabia), Kings (Jordan) or some sort of transitional government (Turkey). This is not part of the world that elections and democracy are inherent in the DNA of the populace.




    ReplyDelete
  3. "That was not in my thought process, especially after government officials said they were NOT doing it!"

    Really? I thought you were the guy who doesn't believe anything coming from government officials, especially the Obama administration. We know for a fact that it was happening under Bush, because it was all over the news. We also know that it was made explicitly legal by Congress in 2007. So, why would you have any reason to believe that Obama stopped doing it? It was no surprise at all to me. It was just a continuation of status quo. Plus, as I said, you are not a whistle-blower if the action is legal. That is my definition of the term. It just doesn't make much sense to say he blew the whistle on something legal happening, but you are entitled to your own definition.

    It is now apparent that the young generation in Egypt is not going to settle for either a dictator OR a democratically-elected leader who does not follow through on his promises of reform. If the military does not hold free elections, they will be back in the streets, and it could become the next Syria. It will be interesting to watch.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I sincerely doubt that anyone outside the government realized the scope of the monitoring before Snowden revealed it. Otherwise there would not have been the across the board (from Democrats and Republicans) condemnation of NSA monitoring. Whether the FISA court existed or not, does not mean that Americans knew the monitoring was being done. If you have evidence that Americans knew the the NSA was monitoring phone calls, text messages, emails etc, I would love to see that. I doubt that you can.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Otherwise there would not have been the across the board (from Democrats and Republicans) condemnation of NSA monitoring."

    Of course, but it is equally true that there has been bi-partisan support of PRISM, including members of the congressional intelligence committees who were getting briefed on the PRISM program long before Snowden entered the scene. True, I had no concrete proof Obama was doing it, but I had no reason to doubt it. For me, Snowden just confirmed what I already assumed was still happening post-Bush -- legally since 2007.

    --David

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.