Feinstein was understandably furious. The CIA, in doing what they did, provided tacit evidence of a domestic spying capability, which is illegal. Furthermore, it arguably constitutes obstruction of an investigation under the auspices of a committee that has oversight on the CIA's activities.
Unfortunately for Senator Feinstein, this newfound concern for the sanctity of computer systems and access directly contradicts her well-documented support for the NSA's domestic spying program. She voted in favor of the FISA Improvement Act, which allows for warrantless surveillance and the compilation of a database accessible to law enforcement agencies. She has long run interference for the NSA, rubber-stamping virtually every request that comes her way. But now, when she is the victim of these same activities, it is beyond the pale? Perhaps the crocodile tears come a bit late.
But wait, there's more! Senator Feinstein has long been a proponent of gun control. In fact, she is virtually synonymous with it. To the average American she is known as the lawmaker who authored the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and the one who tries to have it reinstated every single year.
To be fair, I know when her crusade began: 27 November 1978. That was the day that George Moscone and Harvey Milk were assassinated in San Francisco's City Hall by Dan White. Senator Feinstein heard the shots and got to witness the carnage with her own eyes, in addition to getting an unwanted promotion to Mayor of San Francisco. I am not unsympathetic.
My sympathy, however, does not extend to dishonesty. "Assault weapons", a term manufactured by gun-control advocates specifically to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in order to justify a ban, are used in less than 2% of all violent crimes. You could argue that 2% is still too many, and while I am loath to disagree with that it's also worth noting that 2% of anything isn't particularly significant. Yet she persists in trying to ban them, regularly making assertions that do not bear scrutiny. She has gone further, mind you. In an interview on 60 Minutes on 5 February 1995, she said the following:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for
an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs.
America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The
votes weren't here."
- "I want to just give you a personal anecdote about terrorism, because less than 20 years ago, I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb was set to detonate at two o'clock in the morning, but it was a construction explosive that doesn't detonate when it drops below freezing. It doesn't usually freeze in San Francisco, but on this night, it dropped below freezing, and the bomb didn't detonate. I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home.
- And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."
I suppose it's only human to be inconsistent. But we ought to demand more of our lawmakers than the sort of cognitive dissonance that would imply that they are somehow immune to actions that they approve of wholeheartedly when the target is us. Dianne Feinstein should know better. Physician, heal thyself!
No comments:
Post a Comment