“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither, and will lose both.”
I made a mistake and watched the news last night…I also received an e-mail. As usual with life, it seems, these two events collided leaving me in some strange, uncharted territory.
First off, I saw a story on a brand-name cable news network about two previously secret government operations, one called PRISM, and the other BLARNEY. PRISM, it seems, is an operation set up by the U.S. government to collect images and documents posted on internet sites such as Google, Yahoo, and FaceBook, to name the most popular. BLARNEY does the same thing with the written word, such as e-mails. I don’t watch news much any more, so I was surprised that the interviewee felt he was in for a bit of persecution, outing these two previously covert operations. Would this be considered an illegal search under the U.S. Constitution and its amendments?
Second off, I received an e-mail from my friend in Pakistan telling me that she had been sending me two e-mails a day for two days, but FaceBook was not delivering them. My friend said she had taken out any mention of religion (she’s a Muslim), drone strikes, and politics…that self-censored e-mail I got. I know she is not guarenteed anything by the U.S. Constitution, but I am, and it seems I’ve read somewhere I had the right to privacy. I was wrong, and I’m not just being snide…there is no specific right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution.
The fourth right, in whole, reads – “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the places to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Like all our “rights” in such old documents, they don’t translate well to the current world. The right to bear arms in conjunction with an organized militia being the one that gets kicked around the most. These vague and outdated “rights” need a serious bit of updating. But, the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to take care of that, and such interpretations have been proferred. Pertaining to this presumed right to privacy, Justice Antonin Scalia‘s dissenting school of thought has been that searches must be “reasonable” and the warrant requirement has been overly emphasized. Those italics are mine, the watering down of any rights, pure conservative blather, an asterisk followed by an invisible – “…unless we feel like it.”
Does the U.S. government and that most powerful of intelligence agencies, FaceBook, really need to protect me from a young women using Ishaa-Allah, god willing, following her hopes for sales of her new book of poetry? I know she’s a Muslim. Does the U.S. government need to censor the fact that drone strikes happen near where she lives? I know they do…and probably more often than we are made aware of. Do I need to be protected from the fact that politics is a dirty business where she lives? It doesn’t seem so, since only a dolt wouldn’t know it’s a down and dirty business everywhere.
On my guitar I have a bumper sticker that says, “Ignore your rights, and they’ll go away.” How true. I really am not some sort of militia weirdo hiding out in the woods of Michigan or Idaho or Montana or Hoboken, New Jersey. In fact, I think I’m in pretty good company in contemplating what rights I truly have, and how they’re being coerced. A pretty famous guy who most Americans admire – if for no other reason his mug is on the $100 bill – is reported to have made similar statements when trying to rectify past infringements on rights he thought should not be infringed upon. I’ve always seen one of his more famous quotes listed as –
“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”
As with many oft-quoted persons, this was not exactly how it was originally said. Franklin was preparing some notes for the Pennsylvania Assembly, shortly before February 17, 1775, and wrote –
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
This was published in Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin, published in 1818. But wait…as is often the case, he was probably doing a bit of word “libertion” since he, being a publisher, had occasion to produce a book – An Historical Review of the Constitution of and Government of Pennsylvania – by an author named Richard Jackson in 1759. On the title page that same warning appears, with the word “purchase” instead of the “obtain” found in Franklin’s quote. I do love the liberation of words ! But, no fear, Franklin lovers and respectors…seems that a few years before that, in 1738, the following appeard in Honest Ben’s Poor Richar’s Almanack –
“Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power.”
I know…in the writing and publishing games everything gets murky if you dig long and far enough. The word “murky” seems stuck in my mind since the collision of the news that my government is obtaining information from and about me through what I mistakenly think are private correspondences. I’m not that naive, really…I’m not. I never expected privacy, but outright censorship of my private correspondence, and the covert skullduggery from a government that claims to be the bastion of freedom and individual liberty and rights?
I’m sure this little bit of dangerous writing will garner me some more un-warrented attention, unless your name is Antonin Scalia, you front the Fear Factor Gang, and consider warrants “overly emphasized.” So, if you’re reading this, you’ve joined me on some kind of list that some clerk – whose salary we pay – is compiling in some Virginia basement – which we also pay for.
Weird World…truly Weird World.