Posted on 01/02/2006 7:32:43 PM PST by neverdem
NSA SURVEILLANCE
In a post-Sept. 11 world, it makes sense to give up a little of one for more of the other
I’ve been trying for several days now to get upset about the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping program. No, wait, make that President George W. Bush’s illegal, warrantless, domestic spying scandal.
That sounds more darkly nefarious, more richly conspiratorial and, most important, more impeachable. But is it true? Is Bush spying illegally on Americans? As usual, it depends on whose head is talking and how one spins the yarn.
“The president has authorized a domestic spying program without court approval” sounds like Big Brother breathing down our necks.
“The president has authorized national security agents to wiretap suspected terrorists” sounds like common sense.
Thus, try as I might, I can’t muster outrage over what appears to be a reasonable action in the wake of Sept. 11. As a rule, I’m as averse as anyone to having people “spying” on me. I’m also as devoted to protecting civil liberties as any other American.
But the privilege of debating our constitutional rights requires first that we be alive. If federal agents want to listen in on suspected terrorists as they plot their next mass murder, please allow me to turn up the volume.
Meanwhile, unless I start placing calls to Peshawar using phrases such as “I want my 72 virgins now,” then I figure I’m safe to make my next hair appointment without fear of exposure.
I’m not making light of legitimate concerns about government power over private lives. Vigilance is critical and debate worthwhile, but this seems like a manufactured controversy. It also reminds us yet again that America’s decency may be her greatest weakness.
It is our nature to project onto others the principles, values and qualities we hold dear. But it is our enemies’ nature, and their strategy, to take advantage of those same principles. If not for our open-heartedness toward diversity and our generous spirit in welcoming all comers to these shores, Sept. 11, 2001, might never have happened.
Instead, 19 terrorists traveled freely and lived among us undetected because we were too fat, dumb and happy to imagine that anyone would want to kill us. We were innocent then, but no more.
Now we look for dots and try to connect them. We use sophisticated technology to track calls, collate data, and match suspicious-sounding words with names and numbers to create a mosaic of potentially murderous intent.
Sometimes we might get it right and prevent another attack; sometimes we might mistakenly eavesdrop on an innocent conversation. What we save — possibly thousands of lives — compared with what we lose (mostly the exposure of our embarrassingly dull lives) would seem sufficiently self-evident to preclude the hysteria now clotting airwaves: Bush lied; Bush spied. And, oh yes, people died.
Or maybe not. Maybe people didn’t die because federal agents acted in the moment and wiretapped someone they thought might be a threat to U.S. security. Maybe thousands didn’t get blown up on the Brooklyn Bridge as Iyman Faris had plotted because agents wiretapped Faris’ phone.
Now we learn that Faris, who pleaded guilty in October 2003 to working with al-Qaida, is prepared to sue Bush for illegally wiretapping him. The crux of his case would be that National Security Agency eavesdropping violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires a warrant from a special court before an American citizen can be wiretapped.
That, at least, is his attorney’s position. Other legal authorities assert that Bush is well within his constitutional authority to pursue foreign intelligence and to monitor communications without a warrant.
For more on this, read “Unwarranted Complaints” in the Dec. 27 New York Times (nytimes.com/2005/12/27/opinion/27casey.html?pagewantedprint) by David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey, both lawyers who served in the Justice Department in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.
However the fine legal points are resolved, the current tenor of debate seems out of tune with events. In theory, I don’t want to be wiretapped without due process, no matter how unlikely it is that anyone would want to know the shade of my highlights.
But in practice, the task of getting scores or hundreds of warrants to wiretap suspected terrorists in mid-conversation seems impossible to imprudent.
More to the point, I want the government to connect all the little dots it can to prevent another slaughter on American soil. How rich that Bush should be treated as a criminal for trying to prevent another 9/11 attack, while a known al-Qaida terrorist could be set free on a technicality.
Our decency may kill us yet.
©2005 Tribune Media Services Inc.
Kathleen Parker’s e-mail is kparker@parker.com .
Ping
Precisely my reason for opposing passage of the PATRIOT Act in its current form. There is every reason for monitoring incoming communications from suspect locations for keywords. There is no legitimate reason for the power to conduct warrantless searches of gun records.
Won't matter what the law says to the contrary.
The surveillance laws Bush is using were written in 1978, way before 9/11. They have been used before without destroying the Republic.
This is not an issue of granting FedGov new or more powers.
The whole issue is trying to hurt Bush at ANY cost.
I've got to say, I wonder what the master plan is if our internal enemies have set the stakes so high.
", but would you trust the dems with it,"
You would never know since the MSM would never report it like they didn't during the limp ones reign.
We have to deal with the world AS IT IS, not as it "might be" in some imaginary future world. ANYTHING done by the Government can be abused. To demand perfection before allowing the Govt to do ANYTHING is the delusion of child level intellects stuck in the 1960s. It is Govt BY the people. Time for people to grow up and quit viewing the Govt as some sort of evil enity out to "get them". The Govt has more import things to do they worry about 1 900 Phone Sex calls. Americans have to get over themselves. In the grand scheme of things, the average citizen is simply NOT that important. What seem of such mass significant concern to individuals personally is a matter of supreme indifference to something the size of the US Govt.
...In a post-Sept. 11 world, it makes sense to give up a little of one for more of the other...
If you mean give up (false)security for liberty I'm with you, otherwise, shut up.
A President in wartime has this power, Dem or not. Instead of denying Bush the power on the off chance that it may one day fall in the hands of a Dem, you should instead be working hard to PREVENT a Dem in the Whitehouse.
Great. Then they can take the provision out of the legislation.
However, if they are about to conduct a no knock raid on a suspected terrorist hideout, they probably DO really want to know the gun records of the house owner.
There's plenty of time to get a warrant while organizing the raid. It's done all the time.
Get over yourselves you paranoids. YOU are the center of YOUR world which the Govt could care LESS then NOTHING about.
It was such "paranoids" who wrote the Constitution. I don't want Hillary having that kind of power and don't give a damn what you statists think about it.
Ol Chinese Johnny wants to be just another ant in the hill. He should move to china.
The entire story of western civilization is the individual over the state, not the other way around.
I think before we become upset about spying on American Citizens, we should definie EXACTLY what constitutes an American citizen.
Most every AMERICAN CITIZEN loves their country.
Most every AMERICAN CITIZEN does not plot death and destruction against their fellow AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Most every AMERICAN CITIZEN is not in contact with criminals and terrorists abroad.
Most every AMERICAN CITIZEN loves God and respects the sanctity of life.
Most every AMERICAN CITIZEN believes in the American Dream and wants to make a better life for them and their familys.
I find it hard to include people who are psuedo American Citizens because they have been presented a paper from a bureaucrat that grants them citizenship. Those that alienate themselves from the culturally positive activity that distinguishes themselves as American. Those who seek to change America to something they desire it to be rather than accepting America for what it is and the opportunity it gives. No, those people are not the kind of citizen who has something positive to contribute to American culture.
We have to catch the bad guys before they become martyrs.
We have to identify their networks of support, financial and otherwise.
We have to stop subversive activity which gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
If our President says he is doing everything in his power to protect America, then I believe his sincerity. He knows he will be blamed if something happens and then it will be charged he didn't do enough.
These times we are in are so different technologically than they were in WW2. And the enemy is different. They wear no uniforms. They come from multiple countries. They are not sanctioned by any one country. They are open in their vision of what they want to achieve, which is to kill infidels of their choosing.
So are we going to let the NY Times rag subvert the War on Terror? Or are we going to prosecute those who leak top secret information? Do we want to extend the rights of citizenship to people who openly use their protections of citizenship to subvert our country and plot against our people?
Or should we suspend the citizenship of those above mentioned people if it is proven they are plotting against America?
If we let those islamofacists win, our Constitutional protections and privlige will be eliminated. I say we protect America first. Whatever it takes. The only thing average America has to fear from some "domestic" spying is that we don't get enough intelligence and the bad guys win.
"Most every AMERICAN CITIZEN"
...has perverted the English speaking tongue.
'Most every American Citizen'?
You mean "Most American Citizens...". And for that I do blame Bush. You will be spelling 'Colour', 'Color' next. Or, 'Organisation', 'Organization'.
To think we now trust the future of the free world, democracy and the rule of war to a people with poor grammar, worse spelling and rap music.
Happy New Year, one and all.
Brit_Guy
[With my snobby tongue firmly pressed in the side of my cheek]
Anyone who thinks cell calls or international calls are private is living in a fantasy world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.