S.B., contributing editor
With all the publicity that the government has gotten regarding wiretapping and domestic surveillance lately, I think that this issue also needs to be addressed. This issue is very touchy and close to home for most folks, and with good reason. As Americans, we have certain expectations regarding privacy. I think that we should also continue to have the same expectation of privacy, while realizing that the Internet is a very public place, and that our phones have never really been secure.
However, bearing these thoughts in mind, I think that the government as a whole should still have to abide by the Constitution when it comes to any kind of surveillance. If not for any other reason than to make any evidence gathered admissible in court. Because we all know that evidence gathered illegally is not admissible in court. If the government can show probable cause to obtain a search warrant, or to show good reason to establish a tap, then it shouldn't be a problem.
If they can't show probable cause, but have reason to believe someone is going to commit a heinous act like 9/11, by all means make the arrest, and intervene to protect the public safety and well being. The one thing that the Bush administration has done is to acknowledge they were running taps, and were doing it in the name of national security. If nothing else, we have to give them credit for admitting their position on the matter. At least we weren't being lied to on the topic.
The rights given to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are quite sacred to most Americans, and I think that many of us would agree that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have taken quite a beating over the years. The intent of the Founding Fathers was quite simple, and well thought out. How many legal documents would still be effective over 200 years after they were written? I think that it is a well thought out system that works pretty well, even with the rough spots that come up once in a while. The fourth amendment was a very sound item in the Bill of Rights , as were all the other amendments.
I would have to say that the original ten amendments are our most vital, and secure the rest of our freedoms that we enjoy as a nation. Without those amendments, there might be knocking of the Secret Police on our doors in the early hours of the morning. But thanks to a few brave men a couple hundred years ago, we enjoy some freedoms that other people don\'t have. We should also be thankful that we have brave men and women who are willing to go to take the fight to the enemy, so that we may pursue the way of life that we enjoy so much.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Domestic Port Sales & Security
S.B., contributing editor
If you've been watching the news lately, you might have heard that the U.S wants to sell control of several domestic seaports to Arab countries. Personally speaking, I think this is a bad move. I believe that sales of ANY domestic seaports to a foreign country is bad business. It just seems that selling ports to foreign governments is asking for trouble. I think that some sort of trade agreement would be a way to go. Also, we might be able to consider the leasing of these ports to foreign governments, with the United States maintaining principal control of the port, and also having final say as to what can happen there. This solution would bring some additional revenue into the united States coffers, and help to boost our economy, encourage trade with other nations, and maybe even provide some jobs for American workers at these ports.
Whatever course of action that the United States takes, I think there should be a strong law enforcement presence in these ports to keep our country protected from additional threats that could come by sea, and also this would help to keep a lid on illegal activity in these ports. I understand that given the volume of freight that comes into our country by container ship alone, this would be a daunting task, but it would help to keep people honest, while law enforcement could keep a sharp eye out for anything that looks to be out of place. I think that our Customs officials do a fine job, and that they should keep up the good work, but that giving control of a domestic port to a foreign government would be a strategic error of major proportions.
If you've been watching the news lately, you might have heard that the U.S wants to sell control of several domestic seaports to Arab countries. Personally speaking, I think this is a bad move. I believe that sales of ANY domestic seaports to a foreign country is bad business. It just seems that selling ports to foreign governments is asking for trouble. I think that some sort of trade agreement would be a way to go. Also, we might be able to consider the leasing of these ports to foreign governments, with the United States maintaining principal control of the port, and also having final say as to what can happen there. This solution would bring some additional revenue into the united States coffers, and help to boost our economy, encourage trade with other nations, and maybe even provide some jobs for American workers at these ports.
Whatever course of action that the United States takes, I think there should be a strong law enforcement presence in these ports to keep our country protected from additional threats that could come by sea, and also this would help to keep a lid on illegal activity in these ports. I understand that given the volume of freight that comes into our country by container ship alone, this would be a daunting task, but it would help to keep people honest, while law enforcement could keep a sharp eye out for anything that looks to be out of place. I think that our Customs officials do a fine job, and that they should keep up the good work, but that giving control of a domestic port to a foreign government would be a strategic error of major proportions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
