On June 12, 1987 President Reagan stood in front of a crowd of West Berliners in the shadow of the Berlin Wall... and defiantly called to the Soviet Union to withdraw its unjust influence over East Germany.
"Mr Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL! "
The crowd erupted in wild applause as did the rest of the world. What was not known at the time was that the State Department and others on Reagan's staff were extremely vocal in opposition to using such a strong statement. They insisted that he soften his rhetoric. He simply said "no." We needed to stand up to the bullies in our own government and in the eastern block and let the world know that our principles were not going to be masked in political correctness.
Soon, the wall fell of it's own injustice as did the Soviet Union and the power it held over most of eastern Europe. 16 years later, a unified Germany thrives and most of the former Soviet Block countries are seeing prosperity they have not known since before World War II.
What got us there is leadership. Mr. Reagan understood that the role of the US in the world was not just wielding military power, but by putting on display the principles we stood for and a willingness to fight for it - and to stand up for those principles for everyone in the world, not just our own citizens. We needed to hold the lamp high and be that "shining city on the hill" and let the world know that there was hope, that we would be there for them, that we would not shrink to the bullies.
What we have now is something quite different, quite inferior. What we have now is more in tune with what Mr. Gorbachev had... narcissism, self service, politics, graft, greed, bullying, arm twisting. We do not lad by example, we do not lead on principal, we do not lead on the pure power of what is right. The city on the hill has turned a bit dingy and the lamp we hold is neither high nor brightly lit. My God, what I would not give for leadership like we had in 1987!
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Question of the day - Hero or Traitor?
I have seen the question many times over the past 48 hours regarding the "leak" of secret NSA activities and capabilities regarding snooping on US citizens. Is the leaker a hero or is he a traitor of the highest order? Did he do Americans a favor by informing them of the capability of the NSA or did he further the cause of terrorists and other USA enemies by giving them a heads up on the braod capacity and capability of the NSA.
So it seems there are really two parts to this story --- or maybe 2 stories to this story - Part 1: The leak itself. Part II: Analysis - Was it a good thing or a bad thing?
The leak was by most definitions a crime. But then again, almost all leaking of national security information is a crime. But then there are whistle blower protections. The twist here is that the NSA appears to be doing exactly what congress authorized. However, just because congress authorized it does not make it constitutionally pure. Edward Snowden appears to believe what he was capable of doing with the technology at his finger tips afforded a broad violation of the 4th amendment to the constitution. Leaking it was unquestionably a crime but what other remedies did he have? Congress approved and oversaw it while the executive implemented it. Arguably, he could have filed a lawsuit, but it is unlikely that that would have accomplished anything because pressure would have been brought to bear on the judge to throw the case out and then Mr. Snowden would have just disappeared - quite literally. That may still happen.
Who was really surprised that the NSA is tapped into the phone and data systems across the planet. Perhaps some, naively thought the scope was limited to just the bad guys and that somehow their emails and (gulp) blog posts were immune to review. The review, in my mind is the violation. Others perhaps understood that this was probably going on (myself included) but did not give it much thought because we were not doing anything "wrong." The surprise for me was that they are archiving the data and that a single person at a workstations with the proper clearance (and apparently there are thousands) could reach out and collect just about anything. That, according to Mr. Snowden any way - no one has confirmed that what he said is true. I am not sure he does not overstate the capability or the lack of security. By confirming what most people already knew, I am not sure releasing this constitutes traitorous activity though. We'll see if they prosecute, because if the claims he makes are untrue, what case does the government have?
The problems that surfaced at the IRS with political gaming of personal data pales in comparison to the damage that could be done by a political hack sitting at one of these NSA work stations with the clearance levels Mr. Snowden had. But politics asside, what about the damage that could be done by someone who is spying for another government who sits at one of the NSA work stations. We talk about how the NSA makes us secure at home, but the very act of collecting that data and housing it in one place without better security and creening procedures poses what I would deem a larger threat.
Pundits across the political spectrum seem conflicted. They hate the snooping but they seem somehow comforted by its presence in the context of helping to keep Americans safe or perhaps better said, making American 'think' they are safer because of it. The ultimate irony to me is that the distinction between left and right is quite blurred. Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are against it while John McCain and Barbara Boxer are for it. I'm pretty sure that has never happened.
There seems to be no easy place to draw the line of what side one falls on, which is an incredible sign of progress. When political opponents stand together on principal, rather than retreat to the home base of party lines, we actually getting a real discussion with real passion and real ideas. Politically, this is where real solutions are born.
Having said that, I find the concept of supporting the snooping on Americans in any form entirely untenable. I fail to see where the anyone can argue for the snooping with the language of the 4th amendment being so clearly against it.
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 place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Can you argue that your email and web searches are not the latter day version of your papers and effects and afforded this protection? Can you argue that the authority exists for collecting this data and warehousing it for later use falls outside the requirement for warrants for probable cause? Suppose the police came to your house and said we need to go through all of your papers, make copies, take pictures of your personal possessions, make lists of all your music, and put a chip in your DVR and a microphone in your kitchen so they can record what you watch and say ... but then say "Don't worry! We are only collecting this stuff in case you ever do something wrong and then and only then, will we get a legal warrant to actually look at it." The premise is absurd and no one would tolerate it.
With that thought in mind, I am inclined to push Mr Snowden more towards the hero side of the spectrum. I am still hopeful that we find that what he claims the domestic data collection and storage capabilities at the NSA are not true. We'll see.
So it seems there are really two parts to this story --- or maybe 2 stories to this story - Part 1: The leak itself. Part II: Analysis - Was it a good thing or a bad thing?
The leak was by most definitions a crime. But then again, almost all leaking of national security information is a crime. But then there are whistle blower protections. The twist here is that the NSA appears to be doing exactly what congress authorized. However, just because congress authorized it does not make it constitutionally pure. Edward Snowden appears to believe what he was capable of doing with the technology at his finger tips afforded a broad violation of the 4th amendment to the constitution. Leaking it was unquestionably a crime but what other remedies did he have? Congress approved and oversaw it while the executive implemented it. Arguably, he could have filed a lawsuit, but it is unlikely that that would have accomplished anything because pressure would have been brought to bear on the judge to throw the case out and then Mr. Snowden would have just disappeared - quite literally. That may still happen.
Who was really surprised that the NSA is tapped into the phone and data systems across the planet. Perhaps some, naively thought the scope was limited to just the bad guys and that somehow their emails and (gulp) blog posts were immune to review. The review, in my mind is the violation. Others perhaps understood that this was probably going on (myself included) but did not give it much thought because we were not doing anything "wrong." The surprise for me was that they are archiving the data and that a single person at a workstations with the proper clearance (and apparently there are thousands) could reach out and collect just about anything. That, according to Mr. Snowden any way - no one has confirmed that what he said is true. I am not sure he does not overstate the capability or the lack of security. By confirming what most people already knew, I am not sure releasing this constitutes traitorous activity though. We'll see if they prosecute, because if the claims he makes are untrue, what case does the government have?
The problems that surfaced at the IRS with political gaming of personal data pales in comparison to the damage that could be done by a political hack sitting at one of these NSA work stations with the clearance levels Mr. Snowden had. But politics asside, what about the damage that could be done by someone who is spying for another government who sits at one of the NSA work stations. We talk about how the NSA makes us secure at home, but the very act of collecting that data and housing it in one place without better security and creening procedures poses what I would deem a larger threat.
Pundits across the political spectrum seem conflicted. They hate the snooping but they seem somehow comforted by its presence in the context of helping to keep Americans safe or perhaps better said, making American 'think' they are safer because of it. The ultimate irony to me is that the distinction between left and right is quite blurred. Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are against it while John McCain and Barbara Boxer are for it. I'm pretty sure that has never happened.
There seems to be no easy place to draw the line of what side one falls on, which is an incredible sign of progress. When political opponents stand together on principal, rather than retreat to the home base of party lines, we actually getting a real discussion with real passion and real ideas. Politically, this is where real solutions are born.
Having said that, I find the concept of supporting the snooping on Americans in any form entirely untenable. I fail to see where the anyone can argue for the snooping with the language of the 4th amendment being so clearly against it.
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 place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Can you argue that your email and web searches are not the latter day version of your papers and effects and afforded this protection? Can you argue that the authority exists for collecting this data and warehousing it for later use falls outside the requirement for warrants for probable cause? Suppose the police came to your house and said we need to go through all of your papers, make copies, take pictures of your personal possessions, make lists of all your music, and put a chip in your DVR and a microphone in your kitchen so they can record what you watch and say ... but then say "Don't worry! We are only collecting this stuff in case you ever do something wrong and then and only then, will we get a legal warrant to actually look at it." The premise is absurd and no one would tolerate it.
With that thought in mind, I am inclined to push Mr Snowden more towards the hero side of the spectrum. I am still hopeful that we find that what he claims the domestic data collection and storage capabilities at the NSA are not true. We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)