Does Your Right to Know Supersede Your Right to Exist? Part 1

On 700 WLW, an AM radio station in Cincinnati, Gary Burbank has a character which is a radio news reporter. While I cannot remember the character's name, I can clearly remember the character's tag line. “Your right to know supersedes your right to exist.” Of course this is a joke... right?

Well, today our news outlets are publishing leaks from within our government on the inner workings of the NSA. Programs put in place to protect Americans from another terrorist attack. If terrorists listen to our media and learn how to circumvent our security to kill us, then we will be giving up our “right to exist” in order to feed our “right to know”, and those who leaked the information, as well as those who published it can honestly say that in their opinion “Your right to know supersedes your right to exist.” Let us look into whether it is a good or bad thing for the media to publish secret government projects used to protect us.

In this post, let's look at the information leaked, and whether or not this type of information should be leaked. Then, in my next post we can look at the leakers, and those who publish those leaks.

The first leak was that the NSA was tapping phone calls between American phones and international phones when one of the people on the phone is suspected of being a terrorist. The second is that they are keeping a database of virtually every phone number called or received in the U. S., domestic and international.

Polls have shown that the vast majority of Americans do not have a problem with our government tapping calls, without a warrant, between suspected terrorists, even if one end of the call is in the U.S. I would bet that most would not have a problem even if both ends were in the U.S. Additionally, several members of congress from both parties have been informed of this for years and NOT one has said they thought it was illegal or unconstitutional. Obviously the person who leaked the information, and the press who released it, thought that public opinion would be different, or they probably would not have done it. As I see it, if Osama bin Laden calls me, I give my government permission to listen in. And the polls indicate most Americans agree.

The next thing leaked was that the government was keeping a database of ALL calls made to and from all U.S. Phones domestic and international. Not recordings, just the numbers dialed. Not your name, just the numbers dialed. Not your address, just the numbers dialed.

Honestly, this one scared me. Before the use of this information was disclosed I had huge problems with this. The potential for abuse is great. But, after hearing how it is used, the potential to stop a terrorist attack is also great. So, should our government do this to protect us from terror or not do it to protect us from our government?

The reason for this database is so that when our government finds out about a phone that a terrorist has used they can check all numbers which called that number and all numbers called from that number to find the rest of the “cell”. So, for example, had our government had this before September, 11th and had they suspected Mohamed Atta they could have checked all who called him and all he called and MAYBE connected enough dots before hand to have stopped it.

After finding out how the database is used, and as long as it is not misused, I do not have a problem with it. I appreciate knowing this to set my mind at ease about the government's activities. However, in order to put my mind at ease (and yours as well) we have given terrorists all over the world information which could allow them to pull of a terrorist attack without prior detection. Is that worth it?

America is an open society. The warm light of day is very antiseptic. However, don't you think that there are some things we should not make public? Can we all agree that some activities of our government, in spying on those who would harm us, MUST be kept secret in order to protect us?

There is an easy answer, and it is already in place. It may need to be tweaked, but it is probably our best option. Right now the executive branch (N.S.A.) is involved in secret activities to keep us safe. These cannot be made public without informing the terrorists. Therefore, several members of congress, from both houses, and BOTH parties have oversight. They have been told about these activities since they started, and have given their blessing. That means that Republican leaders in congress, and Democratic leaders in congress are looking out for us to make sure that these are legal and necessary.

We have to trust SOMEONE to make these calls. We CANNOT make these calls, as a nation, by broadcasting to the world what we are dong so that we can all make up our minds. So, in whom do you have trust?

If you do not trust the leadership of either party then let's come up with a special board to oversee such things. These people must sign a contract that if they leak ANY of these secrets they will go to prison for life, without parole, and without visitors so they cannot tell anything else. They can publicly state that they agree with what is being done or they disagree with it. NOTHING more.

Think of our country as YOUR house. You have locks and alarm systems in place to protect YOUR family. You want to give every responsible member of your family the code for the alarm. What if the ONLY way to give the code to your family was to publish the code along with your address in the newspaper? This way the irresponsible members of the family get the code as well as ever thief, rapist and murderer in town.

Does that make sense?

Would an alarm protect your family if you published this?

Would you be a responsible head of household if you published that information about your family's home security in the paper?

Would our President be a responsible head of state if he were to publicize secret programs put in place to protect Americans?

Do you really want him to do so?

Read more about it...

USATODAY.com - NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Like Father Like Son?

As I listened to a show on the radio the host mentioned that it is commonly believed that Ted Kennedy was dui when he drove his car into Chappaquiddick, then he went to his hotel to sober up before calling the police. However, there was a woman drowning or drowned in the car as he slept. The host mentioned this incident in discussing Senator Kennedy's son recently appearing to drive dui (staggering, alcohol smell on his breath, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes) and running his car into a concrete barrier near the Capitol. Since the police supervisors called off the officers before a sobriety test could be administered it will be difficult to prove he was or was not under the influence. If he had not had a single drink, as his later statement indicated, it would have been MUCH smarter for him to ask for a Breathalyzer or a blood test to prove his innocence. If he had been drinking the SMARTEST thing for him to do was EXACTLY what he did. Let them drive him home with no test, then wait long enough to sober up before making a statement so that there would be less proof.

A caller to the show stated that he thought the host was a hypocrite for not complaining about the Cheney shooting in a similar way and then asked the host what the difference is between Senator Kennedy's Chappaquiddick drive and Vice President Cheney's hunting accident. The host responded, though not with what I felt was the most compelling difference.

But before that difference let me clarify my position on the shooting. Since I was on a blog hiatus when the incident occurred allow me to state, for the record, that while the press was gong around complaining that it took 18 hours for the press to be informed of the shooting, I had only one complaint. Why did it take so long before the police were permitted to speak with the Vice President? As I understand it, the Secret Service did not allow an interview between Vice President Cheney and the police for many hours after the shooting. If the Vice President had been drinking at the time of the shooting he would have been sober by the time he spoke to police. I would have no problem with an hour or so for the Secret Service to set up security, check out the investigating officers, etc. but when it comes right down to it over night is far more than needed. As for the press, since the shooting occurred during the Vice President's personal time and was NOT during a part of his official duties I have no problem what so ever with an 18 hour delay in a public announcement. But there is no excuse for obstructing an investigation. If you or I had shot someone we would have been interviewed, perhaps in handcuffs, almost immediately.

Now the key difference I see between Chappaquiddick and the shooting. Vice President Cheney did not leave that lawyer to die in that field while he went to sleep it off. Mr. Kennedy left a woman drowning or dead in the car so he could go sober up, if indeed he was under the influence. If Ted Kennedy was not drunk then it makes the fact that he left that woman while he took a nap even more despicable. Perhaps, had Mr. Kennedy contacted authorities immediately they may have been able to save her. Probably not, but we will never know since Mr. Kennedy chose to do what was illegal AND immoral, and sleep it off before contacting police while a woman lay dying or dead in the car he drove into a creek.

It would appear that the Senator's son is following in dad's footsteps. He has been in drug rehab and claims to have been on prescription medications when the accident occured. These medications probably have a label on them informing the user NOT to drive while taking them. Yet he drove, possibly under the influence of alcohol, or of these, perhaps other prescription drugs or illegal drugs, or some combination of these. Regardless, he had no business driving a car. It is obvious that his judgment is severely impaired.

Representative Kennedy stated he did not ask for any special treatment, but did he accept the special treatment (which most certainly was) given to him without his needing to ask?

How many times in the past year do you think that there has been a one car accident, with driver staggering, slurring words with breath smelling of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and the police take the driver home without any sobriety tests? Would you get that special treatment were it you?

How many people have died as a result of Ted Kennedy's driving whether impaired or not?

How many Mustangs have died as a result of Patrick Kennedy's driving whether impaired or not?

How many people have died as a result of being shot by Vice President Cheney whether impaired or not?

The one thing these three have in common is that they all avoided talking to the police in time for them to prove to the police that they were sober. Now there are questions. Many of which can never be fully answered.

Read more about it...

ABC News: Officer Disciplined in Kennedy Crash

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

UNIVERSITY... a free exchange of ideas?

When University of Colorado professor, Ward Churchill, refers to September 11th WTC victims as “little Eichmanns” referencing Adolf Eichmann a high ranking Nazi in WWII, and stating that they deserved to be killed, we are all told that the University is “a free exchange of ideas.” We can disagree with what he said, but we MUST allow him to say it so that University students can make up their own minds having hear from BOTH sides of the argument. While I heard criticism of Mr. Churchill from the Governor of Colorado as well as some in the media, I never heard of a single member of the faculty at the University of Colorado saying anything negative about him or his statements. That is not to say that none made such comments, merely that I never heard any.

Contrast that faculty reaction with the reaction to Scott Savage, a reference librarian at The Ohio State University-Mansfield, who suggested four books written by “conservative” authors. The faculty at The Ohio State University-Mansfield filed sexual harassment charges against him.

Mr. Savage was actually doing his job. Part of his duties are to suggest books for first year students.

However, when the books he suggested differed with the accepted view of the world, Mr. Savage was harassed by the faculty. One of the books apparently mentions that the author does not believe homosexuality to be right. Two openly gay professors apparently felt that if their students were to read that someone disagrees with homosexuality the students may begin to disagree with the practice as well, and we can't have those students making up their own minds after hearing both sides of the argument now can we. The Ohio State University-Mansfield faculty voted UNANIMOUSLY to file sexual harassment charges. Not ONE SINGLE faculty member had the fortitude to stand up for free speech. Not ONE would stand up for the “free exchange of ideas.” Not ONE would stand up and say “We must allow the students to think for themselves.” And every one who did make a stand (vote) stood for censorship.

At the University of Colorado I have not heard of ONE faculty member who would curtail the wildly liberal rhetoric of Ward Churchill, while The Ohio State University-Mansfield faculty expressed their opinion in a unanimous vote to censor the conservative speech of Mr. Savage.

Finally the verdict did come down from The Ohio State University-Columbus. They found what ANY thinking person could not avoid, NO sexual harassment occurred. It would appear that the human resources department at The Ohio State University-Columbus has some common sense. However, what about the faculty in Mansfield?

Is there NOT ONE faculty member at The Ohio State University-Mansfield who believes in free speech?

Is there not ONE who thinks that he or she can make a convincing argument on a subject if there is ANY discussion from the other side?

Do they all feel that they must rig their classrooms so that while they talk about free speech and the free exchange of ideas, they keep out all dissenting views so the sheep... I mean students... come to the one and only acceptable conclusion?

Is that the kind of school to which you want to sent your child? I thought we wanted our kids to think for themselves... lead, and not follow like sheep to a slaughter.

What kind of hypocritical systems are at work in our Universities which would allow faculty to see no problem with defending “liberal” views while censoring “conservative” views, other than the obvious... liberal views are right and conservative views or wrong?

Read more about it...

ADF: OSU librarian slapped with �sexual harassment� charge for recommending conservative books for freshmen - Alliance Defense Fund - Defending Our First Liberty

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!