His recent blog post describes what I and, I believe, many other Americans think about the recent disclosures on the government's "data mining" Americans' phone calls and emails.
I have stated that I have no idea how a democracy--our government--in today's world should balance the need to protect this country and the imperative to follow the Constitution.
Charlie Pierce:
" OK, let us persist in the notion that I am an American citizen. Let us persist in the notion that I am the citizen of a self-governing political commonwealth. Let us persist in the notion that I have a say -- and important and equal say -- in the operation of my government here and out in the world. Let us persist in the notion that, in America, the people rule. If we persist in these notions -- and, if we don't. what's the fking point, really? -- then there is only one question that I humbly ask of my government this week.
Please, if it's not too damn much trouble, can you tell me what's being done in my name?
That has been the essential plea of the citizen of a democratic political commonwealth for going on 70 years now, since the war powers and their attendant influence detached themselves from -- or were abandoned entirely by -- the constitutional authority in which they were supposed to reside. That was the plea that was answered, officially, by the incredibly brave Frank Church and his committee, and by the House Committee on Assassinations (the case of the murder of a president in broad daylight is still open, by the way). That was the plea that has been answered, unofficially, by Ron Ridenhour about My Lai, and by Sy Hersh about a lot of the things the Church committee opened up, and by those guys in Lebanon with the mimeograph machine concerning Iran-Contra, and by Bob Parry and so many others during the era of Reagan triumphalism, and by people like the invaluable Charlie Savage and Jane Mayer and others when the country lost its mind after 9/11, and, yes, by Jeremy Scahill and whoever he talks to, and, yes, by Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, too.
Just tell me what is being done in my name. I'm a big boy.
I am not made of spun sugar. I know my country -- and therefore, since we are in an era in which the distinction between civilian and military casualties is as ephemeral as it was in Atlanta, or Dresden, or My Lai, me -- has enemies. I know that it is the obligation of my government to protect me from them. That is right there in the Preamble. Thing is, though, it comes after the requirements to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and ensure domestic tranquility. And it comes a fk of a long way after the most important three words of all.
'We, the people.'
Is that a great comma or what?
Just tell me what is being done in my name. I'm a big boy. I am not made of spun sugar. If you think you need to protect me by dropping drones on people half a world away, or by vacuuming up my personal data, then tell me precisely who is being killed in my name, and why, precisely, I need you to do what you are doing. I'm OK. I can take it. I am goddamn sick and fking tired of self-government being run on automatic pilot -- of gangs of five, or eight, or 22, meeting in secret, wise old bone-worshippers, and deciding things that, a decade later, get murderous religious whack-jobs flying airplanes in to buildings.
Because what gets decided in secret gets played out in public, always. (Recall the famous Doonesebury cartoon in which the two Cambodian peasants are asked about the "secret bombing" of their country. "It wasn't secret," one of them says. "I said, 'Look, here come the bombers.'") You people jack around with some people on the other side of the planet and, pretty soon, I'm picking pieces of a Starbucks out of my hair, if I'm lucky.
Just tell me what is being done in my name.
Tell me what is being done in my name and I can decide on the level of my own complicity.
Tell me what is being done in my name and I can decide that I don't want to be complicit at all.
Tell me what is being done in my name and I can be a citizen, in full, of a self-governing political commonwealth.
That's your job. That's what those three words, and that great comma, are about.
Don't tell me it's for my own good. I'm not 12. I know what is for my own good. Don't tell me to trust you. That ship sailed long ago. Goddammit, tell me. Tell me what is being done in my name. And I'll decide if it should continue or not. Tell me what is being done in my name. And I'll tell you if you should keep doing it or not. I will govern and not be governed. Tell me. Just tell me. Before someone else does, with a leak, or a bomb, or an airplane into a building. Tell me what is being done in my name. So I can be ready, when the time comes."
****************
Jeff Toobin takes Edward Snowden down a few notches. Money quote:
"These were legally authorized programs; in the case of Verizon Business’s phone records, Snowden certainly knew this, because he leaked the very court order that approved the continuation of the project. So he wasn’t blowing the whistle on anything illegal; he was exposing something that failed to meet his own standards of propriety.
The question, of course, is whether the government can function when all of its employees (and contractors) can take it upon themselves to sabotage the programs they don’t like. That’s what Snowden has done."
7 comments:
Interesting Shaw. Very thought provoking. For those who chose to think.
In the end the question remains... "Does it really matter?"
How many are listening? I mean really listening.
My bet goes to the premise that rather than listening many (if not most) are much too busy formulating their partisan response to REALLY listen, or should I say read? It amounts to the same I guess.
There is always HOPE I suppose.
I'm a realist...
This from a guy who has supported Republican economics for 30 years. The facts prove you wrong, so why should we listen to you now? The hope is people like you will learn Math and how to add.
Can't say I'm familiar with Charlie Pierce. Obviously I wouldn't mistake him for Charlie Rose.
The man makes some good points, although the one that sort of brings the money to the bank for me is his questioning about the naivete of those who are asked to trust the government and do.
Isn't he really making the same point as Ronald Reagan who said that if someone knocks at your door and tells you they are from the government and "I'm here to help", you should be smart enough to know that a big and helping government has always created bigger more insolvable problems?
Or was it that the government doesn't solve problems—it is the problem?
Blogger once agsin eating comments. Well, we all kmow Goggle and Blogger are quite progressive. With all the data mining going on and all. :-)
With all due respect, Ms Shaw, I think you may be overestimating the significance of formal education and earned degrees.
My father, who would be 105 were he alive today, was not permitted to finish high school. My grandfather was typical of men of his time, and didn't believe in higher education. So my dad had to go to work at age 15 to help support his mother and two sisters.
He was very smart, however, and read every book worth reading, read history and taught himself trigonometry, calculus, and became a whiz at mechanical drawing. He was so successful as a self-taught engineer he was hired to design and supervise the installation of many thousands of miles of conveyor tracks in the factories belonging to dozens of major corporations. By the time he was 40, was made a vice-president of his corporation which had branch offices in 28 U.S. cities.
One of my uncles, who would be 116 this year, married into my mother's family. He was sent out to work at the tender age of nine, and never got beyond elementary school. However, he was so clever, he became a chemist by studying on his own, and later invented and patented the process for color-plating aluminum, which made him a millionaire back in the 1940's.
My father and mother both spoke beautiful grammatically correct English with no discernible trace of a regional accent. Both read incessantly, and had better developed cognitive skills than most college graduates do today.
My uncle never picked up much polish, but he was as wise as he was bright, appreciated classical music, and like my father loved to study history just for the joy of it.
I have earned three college degrees, but I've never begun to equal their achievements.
It was a different time in history to be sure -- a time when it was still possible to make something of yourself against insuperable odds by dint of courage, ambition, intelligence and sheer determination.
The lack of wisdom and common sense among Ph.D's today has reached almost legendary proportions. I known too many of them not to know for certain that this is true.
Book learning can take you just so far. It's important, but it can never take you quite far enough to make a superior human being.
Les, may I please suggest writing your posts in Word, saving your comments, then copying and pasting into Blogger?
I try to remember to do it all the time, but ESPECIALLY at blogs where comment Moderation is in force, and where the blog owner might no really welcome my opinion.
That would not be here at PE. Ms Shaw has been very gracious to me in that regard, even though we are often at odds politically.
Oh I understand completely, Mr. Free Thinke. Some of the brightest people I know never went to college.
My wondering about Mr. Snowden's educational qualifications came about because I also understand that the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. usually recurit the creme de la creme in sensitive positions. But a mutual friend, in a private email, explained to me how Snowden could have risen as a techie guru without any formal education.
Post a Comment