So: The House approved a six-year extension of FISA Section 702, which permits the government to collect information on U.S. citizens if they are communicating with a foreigner abroad under surveillance. The bill did go to the senate where it was also passed.
First of all, I would like to say that I am against such bill. We have a country that should be providing its citizens with a life that is worth protecting and with a life that does not undermine the righteousness under which good conduct exists. This righteousness is that which should not put our lives in jeopardy and neither should it put the lives of others outside of our country in jeopardy. When people come to America, they go through a vetting process that should be enough to declare them as good enough to be here without them being a threat on this country and its citizens. To deem our citizens as those who do not have the country’s interest at heart, should lead us to question the interest of this country before we question the interest of the people in it since it is often within its context. And in questioning the interest of this country, we today will find it at odds with the interests of other countries. To be at odds with the interests of other countries is something that speaks about the interest of that country in relation to the citizens of that country as well. In that, the issue becomes one under which the citizens of both countries are not content in the lives they have–either due to one of those countries or due to the fact that the relationship between one country and another is being used as the reason for the lack of content that the citizens of both countries are feeling.
Here is where surveillance comes in as a sloppy violating shortcut under which one tries to minimize the global reaction of people to their own lives under which the government tries to make up for either a bad vetting process or for a bad foreign relationship or for a relationship misunderstood or for a country’s lack of ability to deliver the life promised to its citizens —in order to repress any bad reactions as surveillance becomes a form of a threat that imposes itself as the thing to be understood instead of the effort it takes to genuinely fix the issues that the citizens of this world are experiencing.
The protection of this country starts with this country. The protection of another country should start with that country. And we need to make sure that the protection of this country starts with this country and that the protection of another country starts with that country lest we become citizens in a world open to oppressions of powers that are foreign and otherwise. To say that the citizens of another country are ones who hate our American lifestyle is not good enough of an explanation since such explanations can be used if our country does not have a good moral code. In fact, even ISIS can claim to its followers that the citizens of America are ones who hate their lifestyle. That is a reason that does not carry the terms of goodness within it lest it does—under which further effort to understand and reason become necessary.
To say that one has the right to spy on a U.S. citizen where we collect any information in his/her communication with anyone from a foreign country is something of an excuse to collect information under which problems become a thing we should be glad to have. For it is in the lack of needing to spy on our citizens in this manner that we can uphold ourselves as ones who are not worthy of being attacked by citizens of other nations. And if we were to stand up and say that our nation has not even found it reasonable to spy on our citizens in this manner, do we assert ourselves as those who protect our citizens and as those who do not instigate the problems in other countries so that they too can understand their problems and the sources of them.
In relation to terrorism– which is a thing that is not even fully understood by our citizens except as an expression of hatred that is the lack of content in our lives or the lives of others — spying becomes a thing that legitimizes a goodness that does not exist without the spying itself. To feel like one is not harming this country in relation to connecting with others from a foreign country is not a duty that people need to uphold since harm becomes a thing under which our citizens are held responsible for the actions of another country and its citizens. And such responsibility tells us that we need to accept the problems in this world as a thing that we can manage by each party allowing our country to spy on its citizens through our country’s “right” to spy on ours. In doing so, we become ones who are violating another country’s right to protect itself first—a thing proven to be true by the wars this country is engaged in around the world under which we claim that we are attempting to give that country its ability to protect itself first… And when it comes to terrorism under which one citizen feels it right to attack this country using the citizens of our country, then spying on our citizens legitimizes the beliefs that terrorists hold where we are the ones responsible for the attacks as we become part of their management whether we are communicating with foreign citizens for that reason or not. For in such case, one is lead to ask, “why am I being spied on?” And the feeling that one gets as an answer is a feeling of wrongdoing that is specially unjustified if one is not attempting to harm this country. In that, “not harming this country” develops an association with the lack of righteousness in this country towards its citizens and other citizens. And if one was to ask, “why am I being spied on?” in relation to having the intent to harm this country, then this spying gives further legitimacy for the right of our citizens to help others in attacking us as it creates a government over-reach past that which our borders are able to legitimize as right. And if there is a government over-reach past that which our borders are able to legitimize, then one must feel it to be true that our nation is depriving the people of other nations from their right to protect themselves first.
If we were to stand up and say “we will not spy on our citizens if they were to contact people from other nations no matter what”, then we are lead to ask, “How can we protect this nation from foreign attacks?” And that question tells us that spying on people is not the answer since “damage control” is not a form of protection but a thing that requires protection that has not been employed yet. For what is giving-up on a solution but that which makes a solution out of damage-control? And what is damage-control but a temporary measure of a nation that is struggling to hold itself as correct in this world? And if we are “correct” in this world, then we are correct in this world–although we need to ask, “How correct is our world today?” And if we are not correct in this world because we are more correct than others, then we cannot be the ones that makes this world correct by spying on our citizens as if we are the reason this world is not correct—although, our citizens are truly a valuable tool to making this world a better place as are the citizens of other nations. And if we are not correct to this world because others are more correct than us, then our citizens are truly the ones who are victimized by this nation under which spying on them becomes further proof of such wrong-doing against them and where spying on our citizens becomes a thing of a suppression that our government uses in order to control its own citizens where the problems other citizens are experiencing become truly that which our nation is causing.
When it comes to women and feminism, one needs to see that sexism is a foreign affair that was made essential onto all women across the globe. The lives of people across this world do affect the status of women in it and a foreign threat is that which is not so foreign to women here in America as being that which extends itself past politics. To uphold a free nation takes a true freedom for the women in it— a freedom that is free from fear, threats, harm, and abuse and a freedom that does not lack the humanity to back it up as true. We do not have that anywhere in this world today. And hence, it is within what is right to assert itself as truly that which is right—a thing that men often try to assert in relation to their own beliefs through violence and other means. In that, spying on foreigners and on our citizens becomes a thing that attempts to uphold a divide that does not necessarily exist for women amongst each other all while attempting to uphold a level of correctness inflected on women that may not necessarily be truly correct… thereby gearing women and others towards a protection-oriented goal when rejecting the status quo may be better for us to do. Simply put, we cannot allow the political stage to suppress women’s rights through a level of distraction that places the wrongs we have today somewhere else far even though wrongs do exist far that are big enough to make us not see near. For at the end of the day, we cannot put our lives in the hands of men without placing the lives of other women in their hands—a thing that we do not have the right to do. And due to the fact that this is a thing that we do not have the right to do in conjunction to the fact that we as women, today, are put in a position where our lives are placed in the hands of men; it must mean that we do not have our rights as women in full. When spying on others from foreign countries and otherwise we need to ask, “What rights will such act grant me and what rights, out of the rights that I do not yet have, will such act give me back?” And you will quickly see that such surveillance does not give one her rights but, on the contrary, it attempts to put them back in the hands of men as a thing that should belong to them through their lack of violation on our citizens. Meaning that as long as people are given the safety that should come from women having their rights in full, then it is as if women have their rights in full. And if women do not have their rights in full, then what is safety but that which is a harmful thing that exists for a woman within herself?! Meaning: If we see the objectification of women to be right, then people are fine with it in a manner that one does not see harmful…although a woman will have to live by that objectification which is a thing that takes away from who she really is towards herself. MEANING MEANING MEANING: If honor killings is fine here in America and if our government tries to keep us safe from other nations, then we are being trapped and isolated from other nations and we are not truly receiving protection from our government. And since today, America does have a lot of women right’s issues, we cannot be given a safety from other nations in such fashion that declares our lifestyle as flawless as to make women hold on to it in an unquestionable manner. Hence, it comes as no surprise, that foreign affairs often make women feel right in being deprived from their rights where such deprivation is taken up as a thing correct.
Share this Post