The founding fathers refrained from writing checks on the powers of the government into the original Constitution. They found it inconceivable that the government would covet power and reserve it to itself.
It took a concerted effort to persuade them to append the Bill of Rights. So, why did they eventually see it necessary to include a set of rights? What is the purpose of having rights, anyway?
Contrary to popular opinion, the set of rights is not a moral code to live by; it is, rather, a set of restrictions on the government's influence.
Traditional conservatives believe the government ought to be no larger than is strictly necessary simply because a very large government possesses more potential for corruption. -á
Similarly, the founding fathers enumerated the Bill of Rights because, in part, a government which is able to restrict that which we take as a fundamental right, though it may not necessarily do so, leaves open the possibility of abuse of that power, as the English government did prior to the Revolutionary War.
Therefore, the framers removed the opportunity for abuse from the American government. So long as it remains unnecessary, it's reasonable to think the government, corrupt as it is, ought not introduce any legislation which could potentially be abused. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has done so: from laws attempting to legalize torture to laws revoking the rights for which legal immigrants have worked so hard to laws retroactively legalizing illegal wiretapping, the government is busily working itself into a position where it will possess the ability to abuse its powers.
This is a concern. Let us, for a moment, set aside the issue of whether such legislation is constitutional, and rather consider it practically. Inevitably, anyone who attempts to justify the legislation will introduce national security as a key element. However, it's not so clear that increased surveillance and legalized torture will enhance national security. Consider, for a moment, that the United States, prior to the 9/11 attacks, had in its possession all the information necessary to apprehend the hijackers and stop the attacks.
It was not for lack of data that the government failed to stop the attacks; it was because of incompetence at the highest levels and bumbling, bureaucratic inefficiencies. We've no need for further data streaming into the intelligence communities; we simply need the intelligence communities to be more efficient. Pre-9/11 data collection is clearly sufficient to forestall most terrorist attacks.
In this debate, we must reach a compromise between security and the potential for abuse; since not only are increased surveillance and questionable interrogation techniques - i.e., torture - unnecessary and counterproductive, they infringe on Americans' current rights, the human rights of terrorists, and national and international law, as well as dramatically increasing the potential for abuse, there is no reason to invoke or support such rights.
The government didn't have its wish-list of questionable means before 9/11, and it still knew enough to stop the attacks.
We must reform the intelligence community instead of trying to pass laws which are immoral and, possibly, abusive.
Neal Coleman is a freshman mathematics major and writes 'The Bogeyman' for the Daily News. His views do not necessarily agree with those of the newspaper.
Write to Neal at necoleman@bsu.edu.
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
