I have heard the collective gasp that I, an otherwise avowed libertarian, would grant the government the power to eavesdrop on my communications in order to prevent harm to myself, my fellow citizens, or my nation. “How can you possibly believe the government should have such power,” people ask. Bluntly, I think the government should have that power because the government works for me and because I believe in the system of checks and balances our system allows for.
Again, I point out that I am an active, engaged, participating citizen in a nation governed of, by, and for the people. Part of that engagement is that I understand, as a citizen, what tools I have available and what tools I am then willing to let the government use. I also understand that, if the government decides to take tools I do not allow for or fails to give tools back once it is done with them, I have options that I can exercise.
Perhaps, the problem that so many people have with this reasoning is that they want to give the government a carefully crafted blank check then be able to forget once that check has been issued. I, on the other hand, do not believe for a moment that the government should be able to do anything without the constant, hawkish watching of its citizens. This watching is the citizen’s role in republican “democracy” and is the price of liberty.
What strikes me as so odd about the current reaction to warrantless wiretapping and its associated issues is that people ignore their history and their practical application. People have this image of a monstrous, overpowering government watching over each and every one of us with Gestapo-like powers. If such a government comes into existence, then it is our fault for not stopping it.
Now some people, at this point will shout, “But that’s exactly what warrantless wiretapping is allowing to happen!” I argue, however, that is not what is happening at all. Instead, warrantless wiretapping represents the inevitable results of other choices, made a while ago, that limit our ability to effectively protect ourselves as a nation. Does warrantless wiretapping mean greater vigilance? Certainly. Does it mean the police state has come into its own? Absurd…
For those people who just cannot accept that warrantless wiretapping should be allowed, there are solutions. The broader power exercised by at least the past two administrations and the current one would not be necessary if we had not allowed our intelligence agencies to be decimated and hamstring since 1989. If our intelligence agencies had enough funding, manpower, and resources, they could pursue our enemies “over there” instead of having to do so from here. If our military had not been allowed to shrink to such a small size, we could keep our enemies over there instead of being worried about them coming here. If we had not allowed our diplomatic service to atrophy to the point where it cannot tell the difference between over there and here, we would not have this problem.
Warrantless wiretapping is the result of our own national laziness toward our own wellbeing. We want our government to protect us, to defend us, and to do the things we are unwilling or unable to do ourselves, but we are not willing to be vigilant enough to ensure that it can do the job. Is warrantless wiretapping the best answer? Hardly. If not, then how would you do it differently?
Posts
2 comments:
I'm going to nit pick a bit here, which should surprise no one. First, I think the checks are failing us in this instance and we're losing some of our precious balance.
Second, if the government takes tools you don't authorize or fails to give back tools once done with them, just what options can and will you exercise?
Some people do want to give the government a blank check, but much of the resistance to this measure is, in fact, the blankness of it. When the government operates in secrecy as it is wont to do, certainly in times of war, then it makes people nervous. It is exactly the "hawkish watching" that some of us are engaged in which you are criticizing.
You are right about the type of government that people fear and that it will be our fault for allowing it to happen. How then can you be so critical of people of good conscience raising legitimate concerns over giving the government further powers to keep tabs on us?
All that "quibbling aside," I agree with much of what you go on to say. Our intelligence agencies are woefully under-funded and under-manned. I think we made a big step to fix their inter-agency communication flaws, though certain turf wars will likely continue until another, more flexible generation of employees comes along. Our diplomatic services are much as you describe them. I'm not sure I agree about the size of our military, but we agree that it needs to be strong even if we disagree on what that means.
So in lieu of warrantless wiretapping, what would I propose? Pretty much what you're saying. I guess the question is, why isn't that what our government is proposing in lieu of warrantless wiretapping?
I guess the question is, why isn't that what our government is proposing in lieu of warrantless wiretapping?
The quick answer is that it's not in vogue right now, it costs to much, and there's no evidence when it succeeds. People have gotten used to seeing results, but nothing bad happening is not seen as a result.
Post a Comment