Opinion

House bills will reduce liberty

Brandon Moeller
Opinion Columnist

It appears we're nearing the end of this war. The New York Times' Web site no longer devotes half its front page to the so-called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." As we wind down what would be more aptly titled "Invasion: Sack Iraq," "Occupation: Oil Spoils" begins in earnest.

For the most part, the fighting has stopped. The victor, of course, is the imperialistic United States, land of the free and home of the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction ever accumulated. The loser is a brutal regime, the leaders of which are either captured, killed or on the run to Allah knows where. Saddam Hussein and most of his cronies are nowhere to be found.

But the Iraqi people have much to doubt, with the United States claiming it wants to aid them in setting up their own government and then leave them alone. The United States plans on installing businessmen and crooks as the interim leaders of Iraq, while the United Nations and other member countries want in on the action of rebuilding the war-torn country.

The only thing for certain right now is that the United States will not walk away from this conflict empty-handed. It can't afford to; it bought Iraq on layaway for nearly $80 billion.

Meanwhile, back at home, more evidence emerges that the Iraq attack had nothing to do with liberating an oppressed people. Freedom and liberty are the last things the lawmakers in this country wish its citizens to enjoy.

Take, for example, House Bill 1191, currently in the Texas Legislature. The bill would make the locations of government surveillance cameras secret. Bet you didn't even know there were surveillance cameras at all did ya? Well, if this law passes, you'll never know about them. This law was initiated as a way to prevent terrorism, but at the end of the day, it does more to prevent liberty.

Another bill in the Legislature, House Bill 901, would authorize up to 20,000 digital cameras to be placed in public to track citizens. If this law were to go in effect, the 16-year-old kid driving daddy's car through a red light wouldn't be punished for his crime ­ when the ticket comes in the mail a few weeks later, his daddy would be.

These "photographic traffic control" systems smell like Big Brother to me. But the author of the bill, Republican Phil King of Weatherford, claims this digital surveillance is necessary because Texas has the fourth highest national per capita number of fatalities resulting from running red lights.

Why not put money into more analysis of this problem to find out where most of these fatalities are happening? Iid wager the statisticians would find that most of the fatalities happen at the busiest intersections. Why not install a traffic cop at each of these intersections?

That way, machines won't be busting Texans. If cameras were to serve the role of cops, what would the cops be doing? Would we eliminate their jobs, or would they be reduced to over-zealous narcotics officers and crime scene responders?

Of course, if we had cops focused in the areas where most people are killed, fewer people would die. Sounds like a great role for the government: to ensure the safety of its citizenry. Instead, cops have become human drug dogs who sniff out who's having a good time.

Luckily, it doesn't look like this horrid bill will ever get out of committee.

Let freedom ring! Surely Iraqis embrace this idea, but they've got a lot of reason to doubt the people who claim to be liberators.

Moeller, a senior communication major, can be reached at brandonmoeller@hotmail.com.