Military Spying on Those Opposed to Don't Ask, Don't Tell
(Washington) The Department of Defense has admitted it conducted surveillance on groups opposed to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on a more extensive level than previously reported.
The new revelations are part of an ongoing call for information under the Freedom of Information Act by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization that represents gays in the military.
Some of the surveillance outlined in the new documents suggests, SLDN says, that the spying may have been part of an undercover Pentagon operation.
The new material shows government surveillance of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and anti-war protests at the State University of New York at Albany, William Paterson University in New Jersey, Southern Connecticut State University and the University of California at Berkeley.
The documents released today indicate that emails sent by various student groups were intercepted and monitored by the government and that the government collected reports from seemingly undercover agents who attended at least one student protest at Southern Connecticut State University.
None of the reports in the documentation, however, indicated any terrorist activity by the students who were monitored.
“Federal government agencies have no business peeping through the keyholes of Americans who choose to exercise their first amendment rights,” said SLDN executive director C. Dixon Osburn.
“Americans are guaranteed a fundamental right to free speech and free expression, and our country’s leaders should never be allowed to undermine those freedoms. Surveillance of private citizens must stop. It is the suppression of our constitutional rights, and not the practice of them, that undermines our national security. It is patently absurd that this administration has linked sexual orientation with terrorism.” (source)
Well, I suppose this is one reason I’m being monitored by so many “.mil” sites, since I’ve spoken out so many times against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That and the fact that I’ve repeatedly called the President a moron and other less generous names. I’m not surprised.
The United States is coming closer and closer to a police state every single day. How long are we going to keep living in denial as our rights, one by one, get stripped away?
And this week the Senate is about to pass a constitutional amendment against burning the American flag. For the first time, it’s going to be a very close vote.
As much as I love the American flag and would personally never burn it (I actually have two hanging on my home), I will defend the right of expression for those who do feel they should burn it. That is what democracy is - defending something that you yourself feel is repugnant and wrong. That is defending freedom.
United States Constitution - First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
3 Comments
Leave a comment
The Supreme Court has wisely stated that the entire gist of the First Amendment is the defense of UNPOPULAR speech. In other words, the idea of the First Amendment is to protect speech that the majority would object to and censor. Thus, the very idea of amending the Constitution to limit speech (do we see a GOP pattern here?) is a direct affront to the Bill of Rights as established by the framers. In other words it's Bill Frist and friends saying: "Hey Jefferson, Madison, you guys .... screw you!"
The American population has come to a place of complacency. They are happy as long as they are given all the little perks in life. That means that most people go to the mall, to the movies, etc. etc. etc. and never stop to THINK about what our government is up to. That means the government is getting away with a LOT. It happens slowly, the erosion of rights and privileges that are spoken of in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment specifically mentions the press and it's constitutional freedom. And now, we have the government talking about prosecuting several highly acclaimed newspapers for blowing the whistle on what the government is doing in the area of bank transactions. That's not what I object to. What I object to is that there is no check and balance in place. The Executive Branch just decided on it's own that this is what it wanted to do. THAT CAN'T DO THAT! THEY CAN'T EVEN DO THAT CLAIMING IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
And even here, I feel like I can't say what I want to say because I don't feel free to do so. I guess in a word, it's called Revolution. Perhaps that is what this country needs.
From the Declaration of Independence:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
About flag burning...
Many years ago, I participated in the "gay riots" that erupted in California protesting the governor's veto of an anti-discrimination law protecting LGBT workers.
As a large crowd gathered at a major interestion near my apartment in West Hollywood, my neighbors and I quickly assembled an effigy of Gov. Pete Wilson. I donated a gray business suit. One of my neighbors found a long bamboo pole. Another neighbor made a sign that read "Pete Wilson". We stuffed the suit with newspapers and fashioned a head. Then, we hung the effigy from the end of the pole with a noose.
As we approached the intersection with our effigy, the crowd saw us and drew us to the center of the demonstration -- it was almost as if the crowd was acting as one.
We doused the effigy with lighter fluid and set it ablaze. I was holding on to the pole as the effigy burned.
Then, I noticed that TV cameras were all around me. I was the center of attention as the crowd cheered wildly.
Of course, I was on the national news that evening. Relatives from Nebraska called to say they'd seen me. The footage was very dramatic. Flames lit up my face as the figure burned.
NBC used the clip as stock footage for several years. Whenever they had a news story about "civil unrest" they'd show me burning Pete Wilson in the street.
My point is this. When was the last time you saw a politician burned in effigy? It certainly is a powerful statement. It has much more impact than buring a flag.
I think it is once again time for certain politicians to be burned in effigy. If that happens, do you think they'll try to pass an amendment that makes that illegal, too?