Church and ministry leadership resources to better equip, train and provide ideas for today's church and ministry leaders, like you.
Get updates from Catholic and Enjoying It! delivered straight to your inbox
…into a police state.
As usual, this is a hot button for me. I would like to point out that the two Supreme Court rulings, referenced in this piece “DNA Swabbing” and “Silence”, were passed by the conservative members of the SCOTUS. Scalia dissented on the “DNA” case. The right to remain silent case seems to me to be more of an issue with the fact that this person went to the police station when asked, and then chose to say nothing. It’s all legal interpretation.
This was a little more troubling: “In the case of privacy, we now know that the federal government has the ability to read all of our texts and emails and listen to all of our telephone calls — mobile and landline — and can do so without complying with the Constitution’s requirements for a search warrant.” The government has had the ABILITY to do these things for a long time. The question is, whether or not, there is necessary judicial support, and approval. The issue then becomes, whether we trust that the FISA court, put in place after Nixon, is too secret.
Obviously, after 9/11, FEAR has played a major role in our policy. Politicians have used that fear to start two wars, ramp up the security state, grant new executive powers, and possibly alter how different elements of our constitution are read. These are certainly great concerns for our country. Several of which will almost certainly face legal challenge.
Can we stop with the 9/11 Antedeluvianism? It’s creeping into Mark’s writing and some of the comments, and it’s as annoying as it is inaccurate.
The government’s violation of privacy rights didn’t begin with the Patriot Act. Iraq wasn’t the first dumb war. Conservatism wasn’t congruent with Catholicism on September 10, 2001. .
I’m not sure, Imp. Are you arguing with me, or with yourself? Don’t you think I realize that our security state didn’t begin with the Patriot Act?
Secondly, are you suggesting that fear wasn’t played up after 9/11? And, yes we have been in other “dumb wars”. There’s a shocker. That’s not the point, Imp. The point is that after 9/11 there was fear, which was further stoked by some in our government. Not that it was the first time that this happened.
I am not making a case that Catholicism was EVER congruent with Conservatism, yet alone prior to 9/11. You are jumping to a conclusion… one that I didn’t even allude to. My comments specifically are towards the op-ed piece by Judge Napolitano, and the facts he is presenting.
I don’t think the fear was entirely gratuitous or unnecessary.
The proper response to terrorism then is to be terrified?
Answer your own rhetorical questions.
“And we only learned of this because a young former spy risked his life, liberty and property to reveal it.”
Why former spy? He told the South China Post that he deliberately took a job that would give him access.
And since he lied then in more ways than one to more than one person, why should anyone credit him with the truth now, either about what he has done or about his motives?
“Why former spy? ”
Unless he’s a double agent out to see who’s willing to buy our secrets and otherwise pal around in countries without extradition treaties with us, it’s likely that his espionage days are over.
“And since he lied then in more ways than one to more than one person,”
Ought we to trust the likes of Clapper?
What do you mean by “the likes of Clapper”? You know Clapper? Are you some kind of insider?
A spy who is no longer operational is still a spy. Was Rudolph Abel a retired bus driver when he was in Atlanta?
But it may be that the Chinese fed Snowden a lot of crap, so that if he is caught he can feed it to his interrogators. If so, he would still be operational in a sense.
“Are you some kind of insider?”
An outsider can observe a man lying to Congress.
Write your representative that you think perjury has been committed.
I don’t understand why people consider Snowden trustworthy, unless he plays a role in some kind of internal script.
“In the past year, the Supreme Court has ruled that if you are in police
custody and fail to assert your right to remain silent, the police at
the time of trial can ask the jury to infer that you are guilty.”
How does the second clause follow from the first? If one chooses to speak in order to assert one’s innocence, how does that lead to an inference of guilt?
The ruling needs to be in context of the case that it was made. In the case he is referring to, the defendant went to the police station voluntarily, and THEN chose to remain silent. http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/details-salinas-v-texas/
Napolitano is certainly throwing the libertarian bombs out there … he must have a new book coming out.
I presume that no one here knows:
Everything he stole
How he stole it
What his motives were
What his intentions were
Who or what else might be involved
What he told the Chinese security services
What he told the Russian security services
Who else he may have conveyed information to
Why neither service seems to want to be publicly associated with him and why they both seem anxious to be rid of him
If you do know the answers to any of these questions, you’re either looking for him or sweating out your own case.
If Snowden’s really a spy for the Chinese or the Russians why would he openly reveal what he did, knowing he would be hounded by the U. S government? Why not reveal it anonymously? Or better yet, why not sell it to the highest bidder?
I have yet to figure out how revealing information to the public can count as “espionage.”
And why all the the skepticism about Snowden’s motives and actions and none about those who want to prosecute him? I’m not saying Snowden’s necessarily squeaky clean, but then the government’s track record isn’t exactly unblemished.
You know what he revealed, or what his function is in the event that he is part of something larger than himself? You know that he has received no remuneration?
I agree with many of the points the author makes. However, I find it a little difficult to take the article too seriously when he states in his first paragraph that the Declaration of Independence is still the law of the land.