Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) must have studied his Police State Handbook before giving an interview regarding the Verizon scandal. The U.S. government was granted unlimited authority to obtain the records of all telephone calls in the Verizon system if at least one of the parties was in the US.
All of the classic manipulative language was present to justify the invasion of privacy when Graham discussed the matter with Fox News and expressed his personal delight at being surveilled.
“I think we should be concerned about terrorists trying to infiltrate our country and attack us and trying to coordinate activities from overseas within inside the country…
…I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government’s going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don’t think you’re talking to terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not. So, we don’t have anything to worry about.”
The argument here is that “If you don’t have anything to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about.” It is an encouragement to sacrifice your privacy in order to get some kind of perceived safety. The boogeymen are paraded before us in an attempt to frighten us into complying for our own safety.
The magnitude of this surveillance undertaking is stunning. Don’t be placated by mouthpieces like Graham – privacy is not about hiding something wrong. We lose our freedom to be ourselves when we are constantly watched. As well, privacy is our defense against those who are looking for something wrong in order to dominate us.
“If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.”
~ Cardinal Richelieu, Armand Jean du Plessis
Mr. Graham, The issue is that the great majority of Americans are not speaking to terrorists, but we are entitled to our constitutional privacy. You swore an oath to protect that same Constitution, by voting to violate the right of privacy of citizens you violate your Oath of Office, and therefore should be open to being sued for every ill gotten dollar you have.
I am constantly amazed by the outrage over privacy issues pertaining to electronic communications. Most of us know that this has been going on for a long, long time. The fact is, you sign your privacy rights away when you click the accept box of your contract. Go to your provider website and carefully read the privacy page and you will find out what rights you DON’T have. People never read the fine print on the contracts they sign. Same as banks, these guys always cover their ass. They have lawyers to make sure they do. I’m certainly not sticking up for a tyrannical, corrupt government, but we have crossed the rubicon a long, long time ago. Lawyers, guns and money (as the song goes) make the rules. Don’t make your plans known on electronic media. Do it in person or by snail mail.
If we’re not talking to terrorists “we don’t have anything to worry about”
If we’re not talking to JEWS“we don’t have anything to worry about”
How did that play out in Nazi Germany?
If we’re not talking to __________“we don’t have anything to worry about”
First make sure you belong to a special group that your special god tells you is extra special. Then fill in the blank with someone that isn’t in that group. There. Now you don’t have anything to worry about.
If we’re not talking to men and women who reason, consider , study and learn from history …
Mr Graham, I wonder what little perverted, sick things go on behind the doors of your life and mind.. You people make me Puke, your the worst unbalanced, sick, nuts on the planet… Your the one’s that need the watching… Have a nice day Scumbag…
And then John Boehner goes on to say that the gentleman who leaked this information is a “traitor” and should be prosecuted! That one really got me.
The guy who leaked this information is the ultimate patriot. It is not only our duty but our obligation to question our government and hold them to task when they are BREAKING the LAW.
(Just wanted to give a shout-out to the NSA! Thanks for joining us! Now GET LOST!)
Great post – glad I found this site!
Fascinating how this issue cuts across party lines just like Real ID (remember that one?). Cato Institute types and ACLU types share outrage over this massive overreach. Sadly, risk-adverse politicians are not likely going to vote to reduce the ‘security state’ lest they be accused of being ‘soft on terror’. The people who benefit are the contractors who have some (real or imagined) expertise in security. They feed at the public trough and then send money to corrupt politicians like Sen. Diane Feinstein [D-CA-US].
The problem senator is not talking to terrorists or whether I like to dance in my skivvies to the the tune of “My Sweet Lord.” It’s about safety in Law. If all privacy is removed, then all the judicial has to do is write some law that and then prosecute previous acts. By having no privacy and all that data, you can do anything to anyone.