When the United States government proposes yet another authoritarian grab at your civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism- and tries to guilt you into ceding your rights by saying that others will die if you don't- ask yourself this:
Is there more value in my civil right than there is value in oppressing homosexuals?
If you answer no- that it's much better to oppress homosexuals than to have your civil liberty- then you may consider giving up your civil right to the government in the name of fighting terrorism.
If you answer yes- that I'd rather have my civil right than oppress homosexuals- then you must refuse to give up your civil right to the government.
As important as it is to the United States government to save lives through fighting terrorism, it has already established something even more important than that. Officially, oppressing homosexuals is more important to the United States than saving lives.
Despite the fact that there is a shortage of Arabic interpreters in the United States intelligence agencies- who are vital for translating messages intercepted from groups deemed to be terrorist- not only does the United States refuse to hire homosexual Arabic translators, it fired homosexual Arabic translators it already had.
From that, we know that the United States cannot ask us to do just anything to fight the war on terror- there are some things even more important than fighting terrorism. That gives us a standard to determine what other things might be more important than fighting terrorism.
For example, United States intelligence agencies say that prior judicial review of wiretaps prevents them from catching the terrorists. Now I do want to save lives from terrorists, but I'm uneasy about my own government spying on me.
So I ask myself, Is there more value to my right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure than there is value in oppressing homosexuals?
Given that stark choice, I would much rather enjoy my right against unreasonable search and seizure than oppress homosexuals. So I have to say:
Sorry, I'm not giving up my rights against unreasonable search and seizure. You need to keep getting those wiretap orders even though it inconveniences your search for terrorists. And by the way, I'd appreciate it if you hire some more Arabic interpreters even if they are gay. If you government officials hate homosexuals, that's up to you, but don't risk my or anyone else's life over your homophobia. Asshole.
Is there more value in my civil right than there is value in oppressing homosexuals?
If you answer no- that it's much better to oppress homosexuals than to have your civil liberty- then you may consider giving up your civil right to the government in the name of fighting terrorism.
If you answer yes- that I'd rather have my civil right than oppress homosexuals- then you must refuse to give up your civil right to the government.
As important as it is to the United States government to save lives through fighting terrorism, it has already established something even more important than that. Officially, oppressing homosexuals is more important to the United States than saving lives.
Despite the fact that there is a shortage of Arabic interpreters in the United States intelligence agencies- who are vital for translating messages intercepted from groups deemed to be terrorist- not only does the United States refuse to hire homosexual Arabic translators, it fired homosexual Arabic translators it already had.
From that, we know that the United States cannot ask us to do just anything to fight the war on terror- there are some things even more important than fighting terrorism. That gives us a standard to determine what other things might be more important than fighting terrorism.
For example, United States intelligence agencies say that prior judicial review of wiretaps prevents them from catching the terrorists. Now I do want to save lives from terrorists, but I'm uneasy about my own government spying on me.
So I ask myself, Is there more value to my right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure than there is value in oppressing homosexuals?
Given that stark choice, I would much rather enjoy my right against unreasonable search and seizure than oppress homosexuals. So I have to say:
Sorry, I'm not giving up my rights against unreasonable search and seizure. You need to keep getting those wiretap orders even though it inconveniences your search for terrorists. And by the way, I'd appreciate it if you hire some more Arabic interpreters even if they are gay. If you government officials hate homosexuals, that's up to you, but don't risk my or anyone else's life over your homophobia. Asshole.