View From The Middle
Someone's Looking Over Our Shoulder; Could This Be Good?
By Charles Rogers

I never thought we would see the essence of George Orwell's "1984" actually come to pass. Big Brother has been looking over our shoulders since well before September 11, 2001 and has reinforced all those pseudo-secret powers since the Patriot Act shortly after the World Trade Center tragedy. At this point, it's a human dilemma, or at least an American citizen conundrum, as to whether we can accept it. We know there is no stopping it, short of some sort of anarchy. The best we can do is join in controlling it by democratic means.

I have studied the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and have admired and adhered to the Bill of Rights and studies of the values of living in a land of freedom and I am comfortable with what we have, for the most part. We don't have to be separatist or Protectionist, either; just live and let live. As long as our way of living and choice of government doesn't hurt anyone.

Thomas Jefferson was an advocate of the individual and, as one of our founding fathers, espoused the value of the ideas of the individual. We can even be radical and seemingly irrational and, if it does no harm, "they" meaning the Establishment, might have a tendency to look askance at us, but still allow us some of the freedoms those in other lands are not privy to.

We have fought externally and internally to keep our rights, seldom making the internal fight surreptitious. The right of dissent is indeed precious...and you don't find it expressed in many other countries without observing a suffering of retribution.

All around us now, however, are examples of the possibility of an eventual police state: The right to assemble has been curtailed to the point where no more than certain numbers of people can congregate or march at one time without a government permit; surveillance cameras are now being erected in every subway station and along some of the well-traveled streets; technical listening instruments are aimed from building to building; signs tell us to report things that barely seem suspicious. And we all (just about) welcome such conduct and the installation of such devices. Actually, they have become relatively commonplace.

Should this be defended? Should we give up our privacy and our right to dissent - especially if it is brought on by our own democratically elected government?

Nowadays, the solution has become a dilemma. Recently, the NYPD was taken to task for allegedly "spying" on activists throughout the country and in Europe prior to the 2004 Republican National Con-vention, which was held at Madison Square Garden. They sent top-notch intelligence detectives to observe - even to the point of covertly joining - organizations that were allegedly planning to disrupt the gathering. The New York Times, which broke the story about the NYPD's activities, said detectives attended meetings in at least 15 states, filing reports on those groups and individuals that appeared to be a threat to the convention.

Last weekend, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly defended the move, citing the fact that, although there were more than 1,800 people arrested at the convention, there was no terrorist attack. Those delegates and others who attended the gathering were safe. And now, according to an article in the New York Post, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority will have federal, state and local law enforcement security officers patrolling commuter trains in light of bombings in Spain, London and India within recent years. Will it look like a chapter from "1984?" Or, perhaps something out of a 1943 movie, with the Gestapo checking odd-shaped parcels?

And there's the dilemma, isn't it? The Civil Liber-ties Union is yelling that the surveillance and snooping is violating our individual rights. The very rights on which our country was founded. The rights that set us apart from the rest of the world and of which those who wish to destroy us should be envious.

We don't want an Orwellian existence. But we do want to be safe.

Yes. It's a dilemma.

*****

Is it time to crow yet? I won my bet, y'know. Barely. I said the state budget would not be passed by its deadline this year. Having been late for 20 years straight, then on time for two years, Governor Spitzer and state lawmakers missed signing the final agreement on the $1.21 billion plan by only a couple of hours this year. But, as predicted, they were late, late, late (ha, ha, ha!).

In their rush to finally get it signed, they wound up not scrutinizing some bills that would normally require, perhaps, some thought. But, as is their wont, they preferred expedience instead.

Oh, well, there's always next year.

Reader Comments

No comments have been posted. Be the first!

Other Stories With Comments:
Article	Comments
Mill Basin Filmmaker Shoots Latest Movie On Local Streets	2
Golden City: Bought, Burned, Bought Again	1