Sunday, February 05, 2006

On national security

Liberals are criticizing the president's warrantless wiretapping, most of which, they say, involves scrutinizing innocent people. But isn't it true that in order to find the real terrorists you "have to go down some blind alleys to find the tips that pay off"? Clearly, the Fourth Amendment is outdated. The founding fathers would never have required searches to be "reasonable" if they had known about Al Qaeda.

To completely prevent a terrorist attack in the U.S., we must do much more. We're only safe if every American is scrutinized. Of course, it's difficult to do this and would require an infrastructure to be developed over a period of several years.

In addition to tracing every phone call, letter and email, we'd need to get more control over people's movements as well. A system of internal passports could accomplish this--if people had to provide identification when leaving their local area as well as reasons for leaving, terrorism would be much harder to organize.

To keep foreign terrorists from acting on our shores we should also seal our borders. No one should be allowed to enter or leave without express permission from United States intelligence officials. Clearly, we have to keep people with unknown motives from coming in. But we must also prevent people with no apparent official business abroad from slipping out of the country with information that would enable terrorists to more accurately pinpoint areas of high value for attacks.

At the same time, we must expel those within our borders whose ties to certain foreign lands make them questionable. Because of the mass deportations required, we'll need a system of temporary detention centers to confine them all while their backgrounds and potential actions are being investigated.

Domestic terrorism would still be a problem. After all, the vast majority of terrorist attacks on our homeland have come from such homegrown phenomena as anti-abortionists, survivalists, polygamists, high school students, postal workers and anti-technologists.

We'll need to create a government commission to address these diverse threats and long-term approaches to preventing them. One possible solution would be a sort of two-way TV screen in every household. This would address terrorism by the lone extremist who might create an explosives belt in the privacy of his or her home. It would also allow us to keep tabs on what people are talking about. We need to have a list of those who might be interested in resisting or thwarting our national security apparatus. Finally, it would serve as a means of keeping Americans informed on the latest threats to their security.

Of course, liberals and other terrorist-excusers will inevitably argue that the occasional terrorist attack is the price of freedom. These people should be watched closely.

5 Comments:

At 2/5/06, 10:56 AM, Blogger The Mikie said...

I don’t have a problem with what President Bush has done, because these people had known ties with terrorist groups. But wait just a minute where are you coming from with this. Do you really want the Government to know every single thing you do? This is the Untied States of America the government or any other group has absolutely without a doubt no right to see what is going on in my home on my cell phone on my computer or anything else, weather or not I am a honest person. However if they find through the proper processes i.e. courts, investigation that I am a bad person then they have the right to see what I am doing.
The fourth amendment is not outdate, but protect my god given right to live my life without being enslaved by a government. Once a government has access to everything you do, you lose every Freedom you have. That government will tell you were to work what to drive when to drive who to marry and were to live. This is not freedom it is bondage and is unacceptable and does not belong in the United States of America!

 
At 2/5/06, 11:15 AM, Blogger Weedgardener said...

Actually, most of these people didn't have known ties with terrorist groups. Of 5,000 warrantless wiretaps of American citizens by president Bush, only about 10 even warranted further investigation. You see, in order to catch every single terrorist, you have to investigate EVERYONE. Even you and me, because how can the government know we are not terrorists if it can't investigate us?

You and many liberals talk about going through the proper processes, i.e., courts, but President Bush has pointed out that it would be too cumbersome to go through the courts for the vast number of warrantless wiretaps that he's doing.

Of course, liberals continue to argue that the FISA court actually allows the president to do warrantless wiretaps, as long as he gets permission from the court within 72 hours of doing it. But the sheer volume of the warrantless wiretaps the president is doing would make it hard to get permission for them all. The court would have to be in operation 24 hours a day, every day of the week to keep up with all the permissions.

You can see why the Fourth Amendment just won't do in this situation.

But after all, if you have nothing to hide, why should you worry?

 
At 2/9/06, 4:58 PM, Blogger the era said...

Ha! This is hilarious! Are you freakin' serious?

Mikie said:"I don’t have a problem with what President Bush has done, because these people had known ties with terrorist groups. But wait just a minute where are you coming from with this."

weedgardener said: "The court would have to be in operation 24 hours a day, every day of the week to keep up with all the permissions.""

You missed something there. Bush said he is workin' hard on this except on Sundays. So, the court would only have to work on it 144 hours a week.

I read your full writing on this and that has to be satirical. You're not serious are you? If you are, you've got major problems dude!

 
At 2/9/06, 8:25 PM, Blogger Weedgardener said...

The era? One of my favorite blogs, if it's the one I think it is.

Welcome to my blog. However, I only reveal to my closest friends whether I'm being satirical or not. (But then, they usually don't have to ask.)

 
At 2/9/06, 10:35 PM, Blogger the era said...

Ha! No, after seeing you had Common Dreams linked on your site...I think I figured it out. That's hilarious. I think you confused poor Mikie...keep it up dude! Yeah, it's the era your thinkin' of...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home