No Better than the Terrorists They Fight

This was originally written on September 19, 2001

=====
How to build a website
=====

America is at a great crossroads today, and we are questioning the very things in life that make America what she is: Freedom.

For the last decade or so, Americans have swayed to and fro on the pendulum of freedom. Religious rights have been questioned and tossed out the door. A woman's right to choose has played tug-of-war with the rights of the unborn. Taxation without representation has been debated, protested, and argued, and rationalized. Free speech has been bogged down by hate crimes legislation. Freedom of assembly has demanded a permit for access. Right to Petition has been tossed in file 13. We've fought asset forfeitures, random searches, gun-control, finger-printing, traffic cameras, and many, many more violations of our Bill of Rights. And, now, we are fighting a war against terrorism that threatens every small victory that we, as Americans, have seen in our war against treason.

After the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Americans were asked a question that Benjamin Franklin gave the answer to over 200 years ago: Would you be willing to give up some of your freedom for the sake of National Security? The answer, in Ben's own words is, "He who would give up essential liberty in order to gain some temporary safety deserves neither liberty, nor safety." And, this writer is appalled that any true-blooded American would think otherwise.

Have we really lost our nerve? Have we really lost that much confidence in our ability to defend our freedom?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) have been fighting their own war for the last decade or so. I have not supported the ACLU due to it's support of children's access to pornography in the name of free speech, and other such issues that I do not agree with. The ACLJ I have supported whole-heartedly, because--until today--they have for the most part read the Bill of Rights as it was originally intended, and because the founding fathers are revered by them as more than just "200-year-old dead men's ideas." As a staunch individualist, and a lover of history and the American way of life as it was originally envisioned, I have a problem with giving up any of the rights as written in the Constitution.

One of the most fundamental rights that Americans should hold dear is the right to privacy. Yes, I understand that the right to privacy is not listed in the first and second amendments of the Constitution. However, the only way the first and second amendment can and will work is if the right to privacy is envoked and guarded as much as any other right we may have. Privacy allows parents to raise their children as they see fit, not as the state deems worthy. Privacy allows couples to get married and have children, or cohabitate behind closed doors out of the eye of the public. What is no one else's business stays no one else's business. Privacy allows phone conversations to be intimate social conversations without feeling as if someone is watching you as you caress the one you love with words that are meant only for their ears. Privacy allows email to go only to the person you sent it to, not posted for all the world to see--especially when costly company secrets are involved. And, yet, today, we are rationalizating that privacy is not that important.

As my jaw drops onto the floor, I read a press release from the ACLU urging congress to follow a deliberative process as it considers new measures after terrorist attacks. We are now in a fight against an enemy that has targeted not only our lives and property, but also the fundamental values of freedom and equality that are the hallmarks of our democracy," said Anthony Romero, ACLU Executive Director. For the first time I found myself agreeing with the ACLU. "Terror, by its very nature, is intended not only to kill and destroy," Romero continued. "Terror is also designed to intimidate a people and force them to take actions that may not be in their long-term best interests. If we allow our freedoms to be undermined, the terrorists will have won."

What would the role of the ACLU be in all this? "Obviously there is a need for heightened security," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU's Washington National Office. "The ACLU's goal is to monitor the proposals for increased law enforcement powers to ensure that they have maximum effectiveness with a minimal erosion of civil liberties." For once I have to support the ACLU.

But, then, there is the ACLJ, which I would much rather support due to their support and defense of my religious rights, among other rights that they have defended in the past, which the ACLU has not supported nor helped to defend. Furthermore, the ACLJ and ACLU have, more than once, found themselves on the opposite ends of the table inside court rooms across America. This time, unfortunately, is no different.

"The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, announced today it supports efforts by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to upgrade laws that will help in the prevention and investigation of terrorism and is calling on Congress to move swiftly to adopt the proposals." said the press release. "There are certain areas of the law that are woefully inadequate when it comes to targeting terrorism," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ who is monitoring the legal and legislative efforts to battle terrorism. "This is clearly an area of national security and the Attorney General Ashcroft has identified a number of critical areas that must be addressed - and addressed quickly - if this nation is to mount an aggressive and effective campaign to eliminate terrorism. We support the Attorney General's efforts and urge Congress to move swiftly to equip the government with the tools they need to battle this ongoing threat."

Did I read this right? Adopt proposals that would erode my civil liberties in the name of security and safety? They are asking Congress to do this in a hurry and without much deliberation at all. And then, as if to fuel the battle between the ACLJ and the ACLU, Sekulow said it would be a mistake for the ACLU to attempt to derail or delay this effort. "The changes needed are sound and constitutional," said Sekulow. "In the wake of this national tragedy and in light of the very real ongoing terrorist threat, we need to move forward without delay to equip the government with the tools they need to do the job. These changes will safeguard our constitutional freedoms and our way of life - not threaten them."

To Jay Sekulow: NO change in our nation's laws that are repugnant to my individual freedom is Constitutional, or legal. There is no excuse for the erosion of civil liberties. None. And who are you to support the taking away of my Constitutional Rights?

Perhaps I am making people angry with this writing. I have stated in the past and will state again that FLI is about issues, not political parties or organizations. If the Feminazis support a law against abortion, then I would support them in that effort. If the Democrats support bills that will safe-guard our 2nd Amendment, I would support them in that. That is just plain sense. After all, it was the political parties and special interest groups that got us into all this mess to begin with.

By nature, I am a staunch individualist. Normally, I side witht he ACLJ. This time I side with the ACLU. I don't back anyone, but I support those who are fighting for my best interest, and in this case, my best interest is to leave me alone and let me be the good American I am and to let me be INNOCENT until proven guilty. They have no right to invade my privacy or entrap me when I am going about my day to day life. I refuse to back down on that.

As a matter of fact, that is what won me over to the freedom movement to begin with. I was angry at the state for throwing me in jail for my failure to play "spy on your neighbor", and right now, I see John Ashcroft pushing for "spy on your neighbor" legislation and steps that will erode my privacy as the good American I am. I cannot, nor will I trade my Bill of Rights for anything, and I am willing to die defending it.

Ashcroft, Congress: Consider that a promise, not a threat. Meaning: you come to my home to grab my guns in the name of the public safety, you will get shot. You attempt to use any of my information without a warrant that follows due process, you will be met with resistance. I am an American and will NOT be placed on the same plate as a terrorist in our fight against terrorism. My home is my little piece of God's earth. You violate my rights in any way, you had better kill me. I will not be the subject of your investigation without due process of law as stated in the Constitution, not as Congress makes it.

Congress should strive to avoid situations like last week's hurried Senate vote to expand wiretapping authority. That late night vote has led several Senate staff to call the ACLU, asking, "What did we just vote on?" To ask that question only proves the lack of thought that our government is taking about our Freedom. Reactionary measures serve no purpose but to endanger our way of life. We should be on the Offensive, not the Defensive in the war against terrorism!

I do not condone the attacks on the WTC. It was a deplorable, dispicable act of violence against my way of life. However, the acts of Congress do not fight terrorism abroad or at home. They are enacting terrorism against the American people in the name of fighting terrorists. I won't let them do it in the name of a war against terrorism, and I won't support the ACLJ doing it in the name of Jesus either. If I were to do so would be to allow them at any time in the future to entrap and incriminate me if they decide Bibles and religion should be legislated out to cut down on hate crimes. Same scenario, different issue. Same result.

I know the nation is scared right now. Freedom does not come freely, and at times it requires the sacrifice of individual lives in order to maintain the freedom that we have. If we allow our government to wrench away our fundamental rights in the name of fighting terrorists, America becomes no better than the terrorists we are fighting.