MoveOn has several petitions on their site, one is to censure President Bush for his approval of wiretapping of suspected terrorists. MoveOn, like other leftist organizations, has called the action a trampling of our “constitutional rights”.

First, let’s get a few things real clear. There has been no one who has stepped forward saying that their phone was illegally tapped. Do you know anyone? Fact is, MoveOn only wants to take issue with the wiretapping that they claim is illegal. They do not want to take issue with the fact that there is no victim. Still, you may think, “victimless crime or not, it’s still a crime.” But is it? And when does legality become stupidity?

What is crime? Crime is when someone commits an illegal act. What is an illegal act? An illegal act would be an act that goes against what is deemed “legal”. What is “legal”? Legal is what is deemed proper in the eyes of law. What is law? Law is made by the legislative branch, executed by the executive branch and tried by the judicial branch. By this interpretation, law is in every way changing. How? Because men – who come and go – create, establish, change, institute, manipulate and tear down law. Law, in this case, is man-made.

I’m trying to make several points at once, but the underlying point is simple: at what point does law become a disservice, and at what point does law not apply? In other words, regardless of if the aforementioned wiretapping is illegal in some people’s eyes, does just the fact that it’s illegal make it wrong? If I ran a stop-light to save a life, did I break the law? Of course I did! But does the law apply here? When law becomes more important than human life, then law has become a disservice or does not apply. Law is black and white, right and wrong. Life is not.

I personally do not feel that this wiretapping was illegal. Why? As I’d mentioned before, I’m not seeing any grievances from these supposed “innocent Americans”. No victims. Secondly, if my local police department had a good lead on a suspected murderer and tapped his phone only to learn later that they were wrong, what harm is there in that? Personally, I’m sick and tired of those so worried about their “right to privacy” and supposed “constitutional rights” while unworried about the murder victims’ right to justice. Where do we get off being so selfish? Where do we get off forgetting the victims of 9/11 and not doing everything in our power to stop these murderous animals?

Of course, MoveOn is more interested in impeaching President Bush and will say anything, however asinine, to accomplish this task. Where I can respect their “right” to disagree, I would ask that they begin to look into “human rights” before they embark on the more confusing “constitutional rights” regarding liberty. The Bush administration’s wiretapping of suspected terrorists making overseas phone calls are in the interest of our most basic right – the right to live. I would suggest to MoveOn and all of those who are so concerned about their “constitutional rights” being infringed to ask yourselves this – what’s more important, the most intrinsic right to live or the right to make a private phone call?

The law is two-fold – the letter and the spirit. What the framers wrote and what the framers meant. Without spirit, the law – like a human body – is dead…