Print

Caught on the reef

Written by Richard “Sarge” Garwood on .

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The angst brought about by the latest revelation we have “leaks” in the vessels we use to gather and hold intelligence concerning the enemies of American interests is heating to a molten consistency already spilling over onto the sensibilities of the average American. The real and easily understood fact the United States government, no matter the color of the ideology (Red State or Blue State) in power, shows the sanctity of the American dream of governmental non-interference in individuals’ personal lives and communications is a lie.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects the individual citizen from unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires a warrant be judicially sanctioned and supported by statements of probable cause. Search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, by law enforcement officers swearing to its accuracy.

Progressive elements of the governmental process have distanced themselves from the strict understanding of the constitution as written (and understanding the thoughts and motivations of the original signatories of the document) to interpretations favoring political ideologies. In essence the government, as it gains more and more power from presidential edicts and self-serving governmental actions, pressures the Supreme Court to rule from the basis of the justices’ personal prejudices and “enlightened Solonic reasoning and judgment.” The judicial findings favor the egos of the all-knowing justices (really?). The breadth, depth and scope of Supreme Court findings are monumental.

Intelligence gatherers say the government MUST have the tools necessary to combat global terrorism and stunt these threats seeking to wreak havoc on Americans. I agree. I don’t want a terrorist getting through to hurt my family. We must stop the covert, vile enemies at the gate.

But, what do we do when government sees the people as the potential enemy. Governments are no more than people aligned by ideology. As that ideology narrows in scope, the mindset narrows as well. They see enemies behind every action, every protest, and every statement in controversy to the government’s actions. These are individual’s actions, but they’re still violations of a common trust developed and espoused in the Constitution of the United States of America and its Bill of Rights.

Those documents are our protections against the possibly detrimental application of law developed unrighteously, not from the assent of the people but by despotic edicts issued by presidents and the self-serving legislation empowering those entrenched in bureaucratic governmental positions.

Watergate, Irangate and the present instances of governmental outreach stomped heavily on the Constitution. The rights of Americans were diluted by political ideologies and the operatives seeking to profit through their association with the administration in power. It was a president and his sycophantic followers ran this ship of state onto the reefs gutting the rights of the people and endangering the principles enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Intelligence gathering is a must. We must know what are enemies are doing and take every possible step to ensure they don’t succeed. But, who decides who the enemy is? Who defines the symptoms of treason and sedition? When does government become despotic and constricting of simple dissent by people acting from their understanding of their Bill of Rights? When does the disestablishment of those rights to protect the individual from the despotic government, come into force by government?

The accused mustn’t decide the trial’s course because society loses in general and then endangers individuals by precedent.

There’s no balance point in this argument lest it be in favor of the individual being tried. No government should be able to solidify the foundation of despotism based on the peoples’ need for security.

“They, who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin

Thanks for listening

Leave your comments

0
terms and condition.
  • No comments found

Related Articles