|
Same Old Same Old…Again
Here we go again! In a battle that falls just behind David and Goliath, as to its circa, the liberal left has once again cried foul against their long time foe, "the system," and the system has respectfully responded with a firm "did not."
This latest bru-ha-ha stems from complaints aimed at the Atlanta Police Department based on their policy of videotaping participants who attend civil demonstrations where anything from the war, to abortion, to animal rights is the topic dejour. Civil libertarians claim that this is a classic example of government infringement on their constitutional freedom of speech. Some even go as far as to accuse the Atlanta Police Department of spying.
The Atlanta Police Department's John Quigley denies the charges with a reasonable question of his own. "How can it be spying when the videographer is in plain view, in a public area, and make's no secret of who they are employed by?" He has got a good point. I know that the art of espionage has gone down hill a bit since the end of the cold war but it seems a bit ridiculous to do it in plain view. I do not think we can label it spying. But, if not spying, what is the reason for their interest?
Video tape surveillance has been around for a long time. Long before its most recent critics; who are quick to compare it to a "dark time" in our country. The purpose of video tape is to create an evidentiary tool should the peaceful protest become not so peaceful. If violence should erupt, police officials can review the tape, identify the trouble makers, and make the appropriate charges. Granted, the large majority of people who attend a rally or demonstration have no intention of anything but exercising their constitutional rights of free speech. I am convinced that the "system" has no intention of making such activity a violation of the law. However, there are those who attend rallies and will not be satisfied unless there is some confrontation with authorities or those who might be present in opposition of their cause. It should be noted that people who are in conflict with "your view" may also exercise their constitutional rights. When these little spats erupt, the first ones to claim that the police are not doing their job of protecting them are usually the ones who started the ruckus. Video tape is the best evidence to determine what occurred rather than interviews from opposing parties who point the fingers at each other. This method has been used for generations by all levels of law enforcement.
It only becomes dangerous when "the system" abuses this practice. There must be some system of checks and balances, as well as, some method of oversight to ensure that video evidence is not used as a tool of collecting information on people who have not violated the law.
In fact, before video was available, 16mm film was used and played an important part in the downfall and eventual prosecution of hate groups such as the KKK, Black Panthers, and others whose sole purpose was to quash individual freedoms that all are guaranteed. Where were the complainants then? You just can not have it both ways. What is fair for the goose is fair for the gander and all those other applicable clichés that come to mind. As long as the evidence that is compiled at public gatherings is used only to keep the peace and to prosecute those who breech the peace, public surveillance is a useful tool that should not be harmful to innocent people. In circumstances where police abuse this method, we should demand just as loudly that they be held accountable.
September 11, 2001 changed the way that law enforcement must do its job. The very rights and freedoms that we argue about, one way or the other, are the same rights and freedoms that were abused by those who hate us most in order to carry out their cowardly acts. Due to the continuing threat of our country's infiltration of anti-American views, the monitoring of civil gatherings, as well as, more sophisticated surveillance that were approved in post 9-11 legislation such as The Patriot Act must be allowed. If we do not, it is clear that the way that we lived before 9-11 may never return. If giving up certain conveniences that are sometimes depicted as constitutional freedoms will save us from another disastrous situation and lead us back to a way of life that we all long for, I for one am willing to go along with "the system" on this one.
060403
|
