Sacrificing values for false security…

“You can’t have 100 percent security and then have 100 percent privacy.”
—Barack Obama in response to the program that allows the NSA to collect all sorts of data through your Internet and phones.

The problem with that statement is that it is based on a premise of impossibility. It should have stopped after the first six words: “You can’t have 100 percent security…”
And then Mr. Obama perhaps should have continued with something along the lines of “…but we will do everything within our Constitutional powers to try to keep the American people safe. We will do this while upholding the values of this country and respecting the laws and tenets that have made this country special and great for more than 200 years. We will not destroy our values to let the terrorists turn the USA into a frightened, terrorist state.”
But he didn’t say that. And that is frightening. Throw in the fact that the chances of you being the victim of a terrorist attack in this country is something like .001 percent and it borders on the absurd.

The truly chilling aspect is that the guy I voted for seems comfortable building on the policies of his predecessors, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney…and all for a goal that is impossible to achieve. The Bush-Cheney cabal of neo-cons was the one that ignored warnings of an Al Qaeda attack in the fall of 2001 and then pointed a crooked finger at Saddam Hussein. The result? Three thousand dead on September 11 and another 5,000 Americans killed in a false war in Iraq. Obama is continuing to justify warped and secret policies that expand the power of a secret government and seem contrary to the ideals of the U.S. Constitution.
Think about it. Since 9-11-2001 our government has granted itself power that basically allows for people to be arrested and held indefinitely without a trial. The government can, and has, killed its citizens in secret. The government has granted itself the power to see who you are talking to on your phone, who you are emailing on the Internet and who you are chatting to on Facebook—without your knowledge and without any justification. The government can now collect your DNA if you’ve been arrested. The government can restart torture programs if it deems it necessary. The government can send killer drones all over the world to kill faceless people who the government believes are guilty of plotting against the “homeland.” Just the term “homeland” should send shivers down your spine.
This has all been set up under the last two presidents. Perhaps they managed these powers responsibly. I’d guess not everyone thinks both were pure. But why do you think the next guy, or the woman, elected in 2024 will not try to expand the power even more? It only takes one. At least one of our Colorado senators, Mark Udall, is loudly voicing concern with the secrecy of the program and expressing anxiety over its implications. Thank you.
To continually give up your rights to privacy on a fool’s errand for 100 percent security is just about the dumbest thing we Americans can let happen.
Most Americans understand that if they use the Internet or mobile phones their privacy is questionable at best. You begin to stamp a profile that allows companies to specifically target you for specific ads. Heck, the local Tourism Association does it. When the country’s secret police do it—to everyone—it sets the stage for the dark police state of bad novels.
Of course those responsible for national security have a tough job but they also have plenty of tools without stealing plots from a Tom Clancy novel. And when 19 thugs with box cutters can forever change our lives, it’s proof that not every plot can be thwarted.
Now I trust that the guys in the present administration who wear the dark suits and wayfarers won’t sit in the windowless office in Utah and spend time reading your emails about how hot it is here or looking at photos of your bike ride that you post on Facebook for friends in Turkey. But someone might. And they might think 401 is code for 9-11. And when you say you hope a friend shreds 401 in this burning climate, you might just get a visit from the drones in dark glasses. Whether it’s a misinterpretation, an “honest” error, a guy who doesn’t like you or some goon having a bad day, the slippery slope we’re sliding on can come back to haunt any of us.

Are Americans such frightened sheep that when the president, any president, says all these steps are necessary to keep you safe, our society as a whole rolls over on its civil liberties? As harsh as 9-11 was, the chances of you being killed in a similar attack is seriously miniscule. But still we are allowing the not-so-slow deterioration of what made this country different. It’s just a bad value bet.
Look, there is probably nothing worse for a president in office than having another “successful” terrorist attack occur on his or her watch. But that is no reason to ignore the country’s core document, the Constitution. That is no reason for a president to enable acts that “keep us safe” over staying within the bounds of “keeping our rule of law” in effect. Allowing the government to expand its secret surveillance powers and continue to twist the Constitution in a Sisyphean effort to have absolute security in this country is a much more dangerous threat to America than any crazy zealot with a box-cutter.
Recent polls say a majority of Americans are willing to make the trade of less privacy for more security. It is so disappointing and frankly dangerous in the long run to see Obama parrot the Bush and Cheney line—and convince citizens that is necessary to chip away at the Constitution in order to remain “safe.” Honestly, working to change the core values of this great country is not “safe” for anyone.