Treason for the Sake of What?

The NSA terrorist surveillance program has been compromised. This is a cold, hard fact. If we know about it, one cannot doubt that Al Queda knows about it. If Al Queda knows about it, they will certainly find another means to communicate with their operatives within our borders, raising the odds alarmingly that there could be another unanticipated attack within our borders. We would like to blame it on the New York Times for breaking the story, but all the Times did was report on information it had been given. Newspaper journalists, as far as I know, are not required to hold a security clearance.
The person who leaked the information does hold a security clearance. If it was a Congressperson who had been briefed on the program, that person would be guilty of violating his or her security clearance and the oath of office. If it was a person in the NSA who gave the information to the Times that person is acting as a double agent for Al Queda, perhaps not conscientiously, but out of self-importance and political zealism. The bottom line is that an American citizen has aided the enemy and precipitated the possibility of thousands of innocent American citizens being killed. This is no less than Treason, a capital crime. On the battlefield, Treason is punishable by summary execution.
It is doubtful that the traitor is actually on the Al Queda payroll, or is in contact with Al Queda; if that was so, that person more than likely would have already been caught. It is far more likely that the traitor is somebody who is so much against the current Administration that he or she would have no qualms about “sacrificing the few for the good of the many.”
In other words, so great is the traitor’s hatred for President Bush, that he or she would resort to killing people to find a reason for impeachment of the President. The person may even see it as a patriotic duty, having fallen victim to the half truths and omissions of truth by the “blame America first” faction. Because the NYTimes has precedence as an anti Bush publication, it would be the most likely newspaper a person with such motives would turn to first. But the cold hard fact is that this person has committed a very serious crime against the people of America, and is no less a criminal than one who would actually detonate a bomb in a public place.
Congress has been wasting time. First, they questioned the NSA program and the President’s authority to implement such a program, then they backpedaled, “discovering” that the surveillance is necessary for the safety and well being of the Nation. Now, Congress is fiddling about over Vice President Cheney’s hunting accident. What Congress should be doing, right now, is issuing subpoenas and preparing for hearings investigating the leak. The Justice Department should be using all of its available resources to find and try the traitor. And, if that person is caught and tried, if he or she has no intelligence value, upon conviction, the spy should be taken out behind the courthouse and shot, as proscribed by law.
Do I seem like a knee-jerk reactionary or an alarmist? Consider this: Al Queda is not just a rag-tag band of extremists and malcontents. It is a very sophisticated organization, with its own government, its own propaganda, recruiting, and intelligence networks, and, indeed, its own army. If Bin Laden, who has recently warned of another attack against the United States, finds it necessary to use another means to communicate with his operatives within our borders, he can and will. We may have the technology and method to intercept those communications, but what is to stop the traitor from divulging that information? Security matters which concern the safety of the population can not be compromised.
I sincerely hope that the traitor is an ideological or paid ally of the terrorists; that it is not just someone who would rather see Gore, Kerry, or Cheney in the Oval Office. The thought that someone would go so far as to endanger the general population, merely because of dissatisfaction with the present Administration, disturbs me. And I pray fervently that the act of Treason does not result in another terrible tragedy.

Document the Immigrants

President Bush's plan to allow all immigrant workers to register in his proposed "Guest Worker Program" has been greatly misunderstood. Some think that it is "amnesty," and would allow and even encourage more non-US citizens to come into the United States. That is not true. Others seem to think that it would encourage more "sweat shops" in the US, where employers could hire workers for only 5 dollars a day. That, also is not true.
The reason for the Guest Worker program is this: to document the illegal aliens, so we can (1) keep track of who and where they are, (2) collect income tax, medicare tax, and social security tax from them, and (3) put an end sweatshops; because the workers, and the work they do will be documented, and employers would be subject to the same wage laws as they are with U.S. citizen employees.

Of course, as a Libertarian, following the Libertarian Party principles, I am, theoretically and philosophically against the idea, as I don't believe the Government should have any business regulating privately owned businesses, but, pragmatically, this is an idea which I feel is necessary in the status-quo government relationship we have now.

Of course, there would still be those who will refuse to be documented, so concerning them, the program wouldn't matter anyway. They were and would still be illegals. But for those who really come into our country to work, it could only help our economy.

Last year, immigrant workers from Mexico sent 19 billion dollars home to families in Mexico. The Guest Worker plan, if implemented, would keep some of that money in our economy through taxes.

It is important that Congress look at this proposal again, and not play politics. It really is a good plan, considering the circumstances, and if there are ulterior motives, politically speaking, then so be it.

When Freedom is Appropriate

I respect and admire former President Jimmy Carter in many ways. He is a man of integrity and principle. His concern for “the little guy” is evident and genuine, and his “Habitat for Humanity” project has been a shining example of volunteerism and non-tax based charity. Unfortunately, in desperation, some of his actions have come across as very inappropriate. Desperation, because, with a twenty one percent inflation rate, an unemployment rate of nearly nine percent, and diplomatic indecision and incompetence, his administration will most likely always be remembered as one of the darkest periods of American history. So desperate is Carter to prove that his administration wasn’t the worst, that he will take every opportunity to point out what he perceives is wrong with the current administration. So, while the other former and current Presidents paid tribute to the life and work of Coretta Scott King, President Carter took the opportunity to politicize a funeral. I am a strong believer in freedom of speech, but I also believe that there is a time and a place for everything. Carter showed disrespect for the deceased and for the others attending the funeral. In effect, President Carter overstepped the bounds of his rights.
Individual rights are those such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to keep and bear arms, the right of ownership of property and the implied sovereignty that goes with it, the right of a fair trial, and freedom of movement. These are the rights and freedoms on which our free society is based, and attempts to suppress these rights and freedoms logically suppress the free society. Individual rights extend to the end of the individual’s nose. Any act that extends and has an effect beyond the individual is called trespassing on the rights of others. Abuse of our freedom of expression is often referred to as “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” For example, I have the right to express myself in this essay, and I have the right to publish it on the Internet. However, if I were to use this essay for the purpose of enlisting someone for a subversive act, an act of terrorism, or for the demoralization of our military troops, I would be committing a crime, and would therefore be outside of my individual rights. An easier example is that I have the right to own a gun, but if I were to use that gun for the commission of a crime, such as armed robbery, or the taking of a human life in a way other than self defense, I would be far outside my individual rights. For the purpose of this discussion, the term “individual” may be a single person, a corporation, church, or a government, such as a city council or a county commission. Subcultural groups such as “minorities,” “gays,” or “zealots,” are not individuals, yet the activists desire to apply “individual” rights to these groups. This creates a set of social rights.
Some examples of social rights are “you may practice the religion of your choice, but you are not allowed to wear obvious symbols of your religion in public,” “you can grow trees on your property, but you are not allowed to cut them,” “you may own mineral rights on your own property, but you may not drill for oil,” or “you must accept a ‘minority’ person in your individual associations, regardless of that person’s character.” All of these kinds of “rights” involve acts of trespassing, and suppress the individual rights of persons within a free society. Suppression of free society has historically resulted in suppression of free enterprise and stagnation of the economy.
The pointing of fingers of blame for the perceived ills of our free society, such as “The devil made me do that,” has long been used by defense attorneys in largely failed attempts to get their criminal clients a lesser penalty than they deserve. Statements such as “Bugs Bunny made me kill my parents,” “Playboy made me have extramarital sex,” “Eminem made me commit rape,” or “my dog told me to kill those people,” do not fly in my court. Personal responsibility is the key to a free society. Nobody forces you to read Playboy, or listen to Marilyn Manson, or watch the foul-mouthed Nicole Richie on TV. Keep in mind that, in this country, we can not only vote with our ballots, but we can also vote with our feet, our pocketbooks, and even our television tuners and radio dials.
There is no need to resort to extremism. I believe it was Thomas Sewell, a conservative journalist, who wrote something like, “Extremism, at either end of the spectrum, is not a good thing..”
What I feel is needed is respect. We cannot expect others to agree with our beliefs and opinions, but we can expect those opinions to be respected. By the same token, we must show respect for others when we express our own beliefs and opinions.