Yesterday a commentator on Fox News Network, accused the New York Times of being traitors for revealing the broad spectrum surviellence being done by the Federal Government.
Truthfully the great deal of bruhaha that has risen over this issue could be intended to produce a paradoxical effect (like when they give speed to minors in order to calm them down, while telling them to just say no to drugs...). We see an example of this kind of thinking in the protests of Uncle Remus' character Brother Rabbit, who begged so fervently not to be thown into the briars. But assuming the Times got the story right and assuming that all the controversy is ligitmate, where is the harm? The article was congradulatory, and the Wall Street Journal published much the same story.
Treason is a slippery issue in some cases. If the war had gone differently Benidict Arnold might have been a hero, who history recorded as Duke of New Jersey or some such nonsense. To his mind he was a Loyal American and a British Subject trying the protect North Americas place in the British Commonwealth. We think he was shortsighted and made the wrong choice, as did Canada. The winners write the history, so even if the facts support multiple conclusions, the story told will be the one that favors the winner. Interpreting facts into meaning is where the real lying is done.
So the question remains is it traitorous to report that the government is spying on private citizens of the United States, or worse, getting foreign governements and credit agencies to do for them what the constitution strictly forbids? Is it traitorous and immoral to report your findings when you learn that a branch or agency of the Federal government is waving the only document giving them ligitimacy, in order to perform actions that are illegal and constitute a domestic threat to the Constitution of the United States? Wouldn't the traitorous News agency be the one that quashed a story to earn the good graces of a corrupt government?
Say rather that entering into collusion with uniformed felons is immoral. Say rather that threatening the foundation of the constitution and the ligitmacy of the Federal Government by performing civil rights violations and theft while under the color of authority violates the oath taken by every member of the armed forces and that of the members of the executive branch. Last I checked it still read: "to defend the Constitution of the Unitied States against all enemies... domestic."
The reason for posse Comitatus is to prevent the Federal Government from making war against citizens of the United States. A US citizen is subject to legal action but NEVER military action. The use of espionage against a US citizen is a crime. Use of secret warrants and refusal to notify a Citizen who is suspected of a crime is violation of several points in the Constitution but one that seems most overlooked is the basic right to face and discredit an accuser with full disclosure of evidence and even footing in a court of law. Another is the right to avoid self incimination.
Use of military assets, including federal intelligence agencies, whether civilian; contract; or military/naval, against civilian targets is military action. Cloaking such activities in secrecy, so that a victim of this illegal surviellence is made unaware and unable to respond with legal instruments is the very essence of what the founding fathers bled and died to prevent. It is nothing less than a domestic threat to the Constitution of the United States and any person or agency odering or engaging in such behavior is a traitor. Anyone advcating it is immoral. Don't we execute traitors in time of War?
? Fred Davis. fd4ds5
at 3:33 AM PDT
Updated: 11 July 2006 4:17 AM PDT