I try to communicate with my representatives on a regular basis. When I am notified of an issue, it’s not uncommon for me to shoot off a few emails to my representatives to show my support or displeasure for a given measure. This past week I received a few (canned) replies from Rep. Chris Cannon, my representative in Congress. I was wholly dismayed hear his opinions on two subjects I had emailed him about: wiretapping, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (the MCA).

I suppose it goes without saying that Rep. Cannon is for both, while I am against both. While reading his replies, I finally realized something. I think there are those in our government that are terrorists themselves. To be sure, I checked the dictionary:

terrorist: noun. A person who uses terrorism (violence and/or intimidation) in the pursuit of political aims.

The two responses I received from Rep. Cannon are chock-full of fear-inducing rhetoric, and it’s something I’m hearing more and more from friends and relatives as well.

…It is unfortunate that we must take these precautions in order to ensure our safety, but al-Qaeda has proven that they will stop at nothing for the opportunity to attack and kill innocent American citizens.

…We are dealing with a threat unlike any we have ever faced before. We are dealing with an enemy who has no respect for innocent life and which hides within our borders to seek out our vulnerabilities and use our very freedoms against us.

I wholeheartedly agree that we must steel our defenses as a nation. I agree that we must begin to prepare for emergencies. But does our government need to hold the threat of terrorism over our heads in order to get us to relinquish our rights? Apparently so, because it’s working.

We’ve given our government the right to spy on us, without a court-ordered warrant, in the name of “safety.” Okay, so it’s a court, but it has closed hearings and classified proceedings. Besides, there have already been reports of wiretapping misuse.

We’ve also given our government the ability to lock us up without telling us the reason. The description of this pseudo-judicial system is vague enough to include American citizens. If you were mixed up in some sort of operation, and you were locked up as an “unlawful enemy combatant,” what would be your recourse?

The problem with these measures is that we’re trading in our justice system for a short-circuited legal system. We’re scared, so we’ll willingly hand over centuries of tried-and-true constitutional judicial process for something that is an “appropriate response to our wartime situation.”

Dear Sir, we had justice before Al-Qaeda. I don’t want to trade in the constitution for more of your “safety.” How ironic that you seem to want to fight terror… with more of it.

---

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 25th, 2007 at 8:38 pm and is filed under Ethics, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.