I used to tell a joke about Attorney General Ashcroft telling President Bush that I called my mother. When asked why the President of the United States should care, Ashcroft informed him that I NEVER call my mother. I point this out to say that the Snowden revelations really are nothing new. I do believe that it's important, just not new.
Now, many people on the right talk a good game about limited government, but then want more defense spending. Getting government out of Medicare is vital for freedom, but out of my bedroom and off my phone is aiding and abetting terrorism. I am not going to misquote Ben Franklin here, but I will point out, as Rachel Maddow did, that many people polled condemned government surveillance activity one minute only to countenance it when the phrase "to combat terrorism" was added to the question. It reminds me of a bit about skiing by comedian Larry Miller when he points out that you can get men to do anything by attaching the phrase "and then you meet women."
I promise to explain the title below the fold.
I expect most readers to have identified the title as coming from Miranda warnings issued by police to people suspected of criminal activity. It is borne of the 5th Amendment's protection from self-incrimination. The entire warning follows:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”
The irony of the current Supreme Court believing that you have to speak to affirm your right to remain silent will have to be the subject of another post. I promised to explain the title, after all. Many people defend the NSA data collection by saying that if they've done nothing wrong then they have nothing to fear.
Think about that for a moment. You have done nothing wrong. Let us stipulate to this as a fact. However, anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you. How can something be used against you if you've done nothing wrong? It is quite simple. The police ask you to account for yourself on a given night and you answer that you were out with friends. Sometime later they come back to that given night and ask you a slightly different question and it garners an answer where you mention one person, say, your friend Bob.
The police are going to catch that- "Wait a second, were you out with friends or were you with Bob? Which is it? Now, you're sounding defensive, why is that?" We train the police to do just that. I think you will agree that my hypothetical interrogation does not rise to the level of far-fetched.
This is not a simple partisan issue. On the Right, Libertarians hate this intrusion of liberty, and on the Left, there are those applauding the Administrations efforts to "keep us safe." That being said, it is the Right who often use the phrase, "Americans don't trust government." I maintain that what Americans distrust is power, which is why we separated it.
Since the government is capable of using anything I say against me, I want to limit their access to what I say. Now before you get all Tsarnaev and terrorism paranoia on me, let me mention two words, "Show cause." If the executive branch of government goes to the judicial branch and shows cause why they think I'm a terrorist then they can collect that data. I'm okay with that. In fact, the executive branch can currently monitor me for 90 days before they have to show cause.
Knowing these facts, and yes they are facts about the government's ability to monitor my communications, anyone who claims to be for freedom at the same time they support this invasive monitoring is so full of it that they must like the taste.