Jesse Ventura has a TV show on truTV called “Conspiracy Theory”. Every show chases possible conspiracies and leads the viewer to the possibility… or rather the probability that nothing is as it seems, because of conspiracy.
Shows include him postulating that there were “Two Oswalds” for the killing of JFK, because there was involvement of a CIA trained assassin. Area 51 doesn’t have aliens hidden there but the government uses UFO distractions for deeper and darker secrets relating to intelligence.
Sometimes I watch the show. It would be fun to chase conspiracies for a living but it seems that it would get old looking for hidden meanings behind everything. To me, there are enough question marks out in the open that can make you think.
“Safety versus Liberty” is a topic that has become more important since 9/11. You don’t even have to type out the full date and you know what I’m talking about. Some believe that the constitutional guarantee of illegal search and seizure should be reconsidered. They say, “if you have nothing to hide, why shouldn’t the police be able to come into your home without a warrant, if it’s for your safety”. Gotta find those terrorist!
Some of this same logic also extends to government wiretapping. It’s the stuff that good spy movies and novels are made of.
On Thursday, a federal appeals court ruled that (story) customers of phone companies like AT&T can now sue the federal government for illegal wiretapping. The ruling allows courts and even juries to potentially decide whether constitutional rights are being violated by eavesdropping in a “warrantless dragnet of ordinary Americans”, as the opinion recites.
The concern raised with this lawsuit proceeding is what could be introduced as evidence, relating to the government’s war on terror. While the court has ruled that citizens have a claim for “concrete injury”, the argument against the lawsuit is like the same argument which says this is necessary for our safety.
There are those that say that we have not had an attack on American soil since 9/11, and it’s because we’ve been able to stop those attacks with methods like those that would be disclosed in these types of lawsuits. The government defense asserts that there should be governmental immunity, or else it will impact the secrecy and ability of the intelligence community.
It all comes down to whether the Constitution is mostly important or whether it’s really only important in certain circumstances. All of us have heard the old “the end justifies the means”. Fortunately, I don’t think that most really believe or accept that. Guess it’s an argument with many layers.
And now, for pic o’ day… some more motivation from “Exercise Cat”.