« February 11, 2006 | Main | February 13, 2006 »
Ambivalent Question: Do we need the spying?
This week's Ambivalent Question asks: “Its legality aside: Does the U.S. need Bush's NSA domestic spying program?”
Here is the basic background: Shortly after the attacks of 9/11/01, President Bush authorized the NSA to begin eavesdropping on telephone and email conversations between Americans in the U.S. and Americans and non-Americans outside of the U.S. This program remained secret until last December, when the NY Times published a story about it (after holding the story for nearly a year). There is great disagreement over whether the program is legal, but the latest chorus I'm hearing is that if it's illegal, Congress is more than happy to change the law to make it legal. So the Ambivalent Question sidesteps the legality issue to ask: Is this a necessary program? Does it do us any good? Do its benefits (real or potential or theoretical) outweigh its costs (again, real or potential or theoretical)?
Voting and comments are open, so whadyathink?
Posted 11:22 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack | ambivalent questions
Cartoon Poll: Publish w/restraint
The last Ambivalent Poll asked: “What do you think about the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed?” (Related post.) The final results were:
- 28.6% of respondents said “The media have the right to publish, but they probably should not do so.”
- 28.6% said “Impeach Bush.”
- 25.7% said “A cartoon, no matter what it depicts, can never justify violence.”
- 17.1% said “Western media should publish such things; it's a matter of free speech.”
- 0.0% said “Western media should *not* publish such things; doing so is insensitve to Muslims and Islam.”
I was in the majority on this one; it's probably best to exercise restraint in publication of these cartoons and yes, we should definitely impeach Bush. As L. pointed out, the original motivation for the cartoons could very well have had a large racist component, so while reprinting them might seem like an expression of support for free speech, it also ends up reinforcing whatever racism might have motivated the cartoons in the first place.
These are hard questions. I'm tempted to agree that cartoons alone should never justify violence, but it's hard to say that the violence we've seen is really a result of these cartoons. The cartoons may have been the touchstone, but it's clear the anger and resentment were there already. What to do about that is the gazillion-dollar question.
Thanks to all who voted. A new Ambivalent Question will be up soon.
Posted 10:22 AM | TrackBack | ambivalent questions
Blawg Wisdom: Updated
Just FYI: Blawg Wisdom got a few updates this week thanks to great posts from Songius, Funny Yet Accurate, and Divine Angst. Check it out.
And, as always, if you see any great advice for law students in your reading 'round the web, please share.
