Rants & Raves

Rants & Raves

Rants & Raves

Date: Thursday, December 19, 2002 10:47 AM

From: Tom (round_up@msn.com)

Subject: Cities Say No to Federal Snooping

Interesting (Cities Say No to Federal Snooping, Dec. 19, 2002). We are a country that was brutally attacked and is presently at war. Wartime rules and rights are very much more restrictive than those of peacetime. I agree the government has to be closely monitored. I also agree we could be attacked at again at any second.

If monitoring stops an attack, then monitoring becomes a good thing. How do you justify, during war, a movement to reduce the government's ability to fight that war? Can the city council be rightfully accused of being pro al-Qaeda? Can the librarians be rightfully accused of treason for their aiding and abetting the enemy? Can the government be accused of being overzealous in its pursuit of information and its monitoring of people who may or may not be suspects? All valid questions, and not easily answerable.

If your building is attacked tomorrow and you are killed, do you then stick up for the librarians and city councils? Or do you stick up for the government that was thwarted in their efforts to monitor those things that may provide patterns of terrorist behavior?

I think it comes down to your perceived level of personal safety. In the case of California, I think they view New York as far, far away and not wholly undeserving of attack. Librarians are not likely to be targets. City councils are not likely to be targets. Oakland, California is not likely to be targeted. Therefore, they could care less what the repercussions of their actions may be on a macro scale, since their little micro-scale world is unlikely to be effected one way or another.

Their biggest problem is that no city or state has the authority to usurp federal law. In so doing, some of these city council people and librarians may well find themselves facing federal charges.