Rodgers Gets it Right
Jeff Taylor | December 31, 2005, 7:55am
T.J. Rodgers, founder and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, has penned an op-ed that frames the War on Terror and its impact on civil liberties correctly. Namely, that there are worse things in the world than another 9/11, a 24/7 police state for one:
What's the worst thing that Al-Qaida can do to America? We have probably already seen it. Of course, the government can talk about bigger things, like the use of weapons of mass destruction, to justify its use of totalitarian tactics.
I would much rather live as a free man under the highly improbable threat of another significant Al-Qaida attack than I would as a serf, spied on by an oppressive government that can jail me secretly, without charges. If the Patriot Act defines the term "patriot," then I am certainly not one.
By far, our own government is a bigger threat to our freedom than any possible menace posed by Al-Qaida.
The architects of the maximum security state do not think this way. In fact, they probably do not understand Rodgers' argument in the slightest and assume he is making some sort of moral equivalence claim about the American government and al Qaida. Or perhaps that Rodgers would not say such things if he understood the wholesome motives behind the security measures he fears.
But Rodgers gets it. We get it. A lot of us get it. More people need to start saying it out loud, though.
There are worse things than another 9/11.
Jack | December 31, 2005, 12:09pm | #
Reggie Rivers wrote a very similar column in the Denver Post back on *November 1, 2001*. I can't find a link to a version on-line, so here it is reposted from LexisNexis:
November 1, 2001 Thursday 2D EDITION
SECTION: DENVER & THE WEST; Pg. B-07
HEADLINE: Value of freedom immeasurable
BYLINE: Reggie Rivers,
My father served in the U.S. Air Force for 23 years. I have four siblings who are career Air Force enlistees and, in the event of war, each of them knows that he or she may have to risk his or her life to defend the freedoms we have in this country.
Many men and women have died to protect our constitutional rights. The willingness to die is required of everyone in the military. Freedom is more valuable than a particular soldier's life, or even tens of thousands of soldiers' lives. Shouldn't freedom be worth thousands of civilian lives, too?
Our national focus is on security. We want to be safe at home, safe in our cars, safe at work, safe on airplanes, safe at the mall and safe at the ball game. So acute is our need for security that we're willing to give up our freedom to get it.
Imagine if our men and women in uniform had the same attitude. Their commander gives the order to charge a hill, and they sit back and say, 'Dang, Sarge, that looks kind of dangerous. I'm not sure this freedom we're defending is really worth the risk. What good is it to me if I get killed? Why don't we just give up some of the freedom and stay back here where it's safe?'
Our military doesn't do that. They put themselves in harm's way. They get shot, bombed, gassed, captured and tortured, because freedom is worth the price.
Where is our commitment as regular citizens? Shouldn't we be willing to risk our lives for freedom? As many as 6,000 civilians were killed on Sept. 11, and we're so terrified that we allow our legislators to strip away our freedoms and ratchet us down into a maximum-security prison of sorts.
A few weeks ago, President Bush urged us to live normal lives. He wanted us to get on airplanes, go to work and do all the things we'd normally do.
Part of that is to shore up our economy, but the real point is that by continuing to live according to our normal routines, we're defending freedom.
We're saying, 'Yes, terrorists may kill a few thousand of us at a time, but that threat it not enough to make us cower in fear.'
Unfortunately, that's exactly what we're doing - cowering. We're allowing our lawmakers to strip away our freedoms and we're not even putting up a fight. We're refusing to charge the hill, because we're afraid that some of us may get hurt or killed.
Is freedom real or is it just a silly idea that can be indulged only when we're not under attack?
One of the many critical e-mails I've received during the past few weeks summed up my position more succinctly than I ever could. The writer, 'Steve,' wrote: 'Reggie, your problem is that you fear the government more than you fear criminals and terrorists.'
I smiled. Finally, someone who understands me. Our founding fathers also feared the dangerous, expansive, coercive tyranny of government far more than the threat of criminals or terrorists.
As we've seen by dramatic example, terrorists have a certain amount of power. They can scare us, hurt us and even kill us. But ultimately, they can't take away our freedoms; only we can do that.
If a criminal breaks into my house, I can defend myself and/or call the police. But if the government breaks into my house there's nothing I can do but stand and watch.
Yes, I fear the government more than I fear criminals. I'm not willing to let my concern about terrorists eclipse my commitment to freedom.
Are you?
Former Denver Broncos player Reggie Rivers (reggierivers@clearchannel.com) writes Thursdays on The Post op-ed page and is a talk host on KHOW Radio (630 AM, weekdays from 3 to 5 p.m.).
----------------------------------------
Claire | December 31, 2005, 3:48pm | #
I'm also with T J Rodgers. The American People should have a say in whether or not they would give up their liberties to an administration which failed to protect the people of New Orleans from pending disaster, let the dead float in the streets, the survivors brave floodwaters in their homes, or corralled under surveillance with no food, water or basic necessities, while Blackwater mercenaries threatened to pick off Walmart looters, many of whom were only searching for food/water/dry clothing to survive.
It brought to life "Les Miserables", Victor Hugo's legend of Jean Valjean, who went to prison for 20 years for trying to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family.
I'm sure that the poor people of New Orleans weren't worried in the least about Al Quaida and seriously doubt that Al Quaida was anywhere about.
The tragedy of 9-11 was truly horrifying. All in America were riveted to TV and radio stations as the drama clenched/drenched a Nation in fear.
That was over three years ago and we'll never forget it. But we must get back on track.
The population of the US is approaching 300 million people (298 million as of today). I couldn't find the figures yet for 2005, but in 2004, about 145,000 people died by homicide or accidental injury. If we extrapolate that over the 4 year period since 9-11, that's roughly 580 thousand people who've died through accidental or intentional means not involving terrorism. Five percent of the deaths were ruled as accidental, another one percent homicide.
In other words:
We're more likely to be struck by lightening than by a terrorist. We're more likely to die in a traffic accident than be hit by a terrorist. We're more likely to be murdered by a common thug than by a terrorist.
Get a Grip, America! Don't let this Misbegotten Administration turn American into a Police State. They won't protect you any more than they protected the Poor People of New Orleans.
policestate | December 31, 2005, 7:25pm | #
"Help me out with the comment you're referring to here. Who called the USA circa 2006 a police state?"
Okay. I'm pretty good at reading comprehension:
"Namely, that there are worse things in the world than another 9/11, a 24/7 police state for one:
'What's the worst thing that Al-Qaida can do to America? We have probably already seen it. Of course, the government can talk about bigger things, like the use of weapons of mass destruction, to justify its use of totalitarian tactics.'"
JAT says Rodgers "gets it right" for starters when Rodgers says the worst thing Al Qaida can do we've "already seen." JAT has said there's worse things than another 9/11 a "police state" being one of them.
Even if you can wiggle through that traffic and try and argue that neither was arguing the US currently is a "police state," certainly the rhetoric in that regard is so plentiful that it basically amounts to the same thing.
"No, Stephen, but we can defend ourselves without gutting the Constitution or giving the executive branch carte blanche to do almost whatever it wants"
"Most people are either too stupid to recognize authoritarianism or too authoritarian-minded to care."
What am I supposed to infer from these sorts of comments? (and generally "everyone is too stupid or else they'd be as smart as me" comments are ignorable regardless of specific content).
Being crazed shouters gets you ignored. And being ignored is pretty much the fundamental challenge facing libertarians today.
thoreau | December 31, 2005, 8:07pm | #
We aren't a police state right now.
The problem is that there isn't a sharp dividing line. There's the USA of the late 20th century, then there's this. Then there's Singapore. Then there's Putin's Russia. Then there's China. Then there's Stalin. And lots of other regimes that fall somewhere between the ones listed.
Each step gets worse and worse, and it's not clear that any of those steps actually make us safer.
I become very worried when our leaders want to move in a more authoritarian direction without any clear security benefits to be had. The President isn't simply asking for the power to tap the phones of suspected terrorists.
We already have laws allowing that. No, what he's demanding is the authority to do that without any oversight from the FISA court, which has generally been very deferential in granting warrant requests.
And the President isn't asking for the power to lock up terrorists.
We already have laws for that. No, the President wants the power to do that without a trial and conviction.
History shows that the executive branch becomes very dangerous without meaningful checks and balances from the judicial branch. We aren't there yet, but the President is asking us to take significant steps in that direction.
And...aw, hell, I give up. I can't believe that this case needs to be made. I've said all I have to say, and Karen Cox has provided an even better perspective on the matter. Anybody who doesn't get it after reading this thread is simply too scared to care about freedom. Fuck it.
