The NSA's power to scrutinize the communications of any and all American citizens gives too much knowledge and therefore too much power to the executive branch.
The Bill of Rights guarantees us, by limiting the government in a number of respects, the right of privacy.
The decision Smith v. Maryland which authorizes law enforcement to obtain the pen registers or telephone records of one or a small group of suspects in the course of the investigation of a crime should not, in my opinion, be interpreted to mean that our government may obtain those same and similar records from citizens as it will. Smith v. Maryland did not permit the mass capture of the electronic records of nearly all Americans. That obviously violates the intent of the Founders, the authors of the Bill of Rights. We already set certain limits on the government's authority to violate personal rights in the John Adams administration.
The Third and Fourth Amendments speak to the rights of Americans to privacy in their homes and personal effects. My telephone belongs to me. I hire a communications company to provide the cables and wires that permit me to connect to other humans and businesses. But my information belongs to me. I do not think that my internet or telephone provider should be able to give access to that information to the government or any other private party. I know that at this time, providers do allow access to private and government entities, but that can and should be changed. I certainly don't give the phone company the right to listen to my calls.
I predict that the horrors of the current scheme will become evident when someone in the NSA crosses the wrong member of Congress or the wrong president and a scandal is uncovered. It's bound to happen.
Further, it is a long tradition in British and American law that a suspect is not required to testify against himself. It is also a long-standing legal tradition, one that is basic to our trial system, that confidentiality of the communications between lawyers and their clients must be respected. A lawyer has a duty to maintain the confidentiality of his/her communications with his/her clients. The NSA program means that lawyers cannot talk to clients over the phone. This would especially be true of lawyers representing people suspected of terrorism. Even terror suspects are entitled to the adequate representation of counsel in appropriate cases.
The NSA's programs violate the Constitution in terms of the co-equality and independence of the branches of government, the right to privacy that every American enjoys, and, in addition, also the essential safeguards in our legal system that ensure our right to a fair trial and the representation of a lawyer in certain criminal trials.
Clearly Hayden does not see the menace that these NSA programs pose to individual freedom, privacy and the creative muscle that enables American excellence in business, scholarship, the arts and our personal lives. That creative muscle can only be flexed in a social and political environment that is free, one in which people can make mistakes. The NSA programs keep an indelible record of our mistakes and personal quirks. That deprives people of the ability to express themselves honestly.
During the German Third Reich, people were afraid to speak out. They were compelled by social pressure and fear of reprisals to speak only positively of Hitler and Germany. Dissent was punished if it became audible at all. This surveillance is moving toward that kind of psychological oppression. We aren't there yet, but we will be.
The NSA surveillance and collection of metadata will have the same effect on our political, social, intellectual, spiritual and personal lives as the veils and body coverings that women in Muslim countries have been required to wear. Coupled with the surveillance in airports and train stations, the NSA surveillance will impose barriers to our freedom similar to the barriers the STASI erected in E. Germany.
Besides, these NSA programs will hurt our internet companies and reap distrust in our relationships with our allies and friends. Other countries do not have the resources that we have to intercept so much traffic in communications. Everybody may be doing a little snooping, but not all are doing it as intrusively and as massively as the NSA. So, the argument that we either have to snoop or be snooped upon just does not work. Who besides the NSA is interested in collecting the metadata on a 70-year old retiree who is just minding her own business. That's me, and I can tell the NSA that I do not like being snooped on even though I am beyond the age when I might do something really naughty.
Finally, the programs cost far too much for the benefit they have the potential to provide, far too much. We are, please remember General Hayden, cutting food stamps -- taking food out of the mouths of small children -- and cutting off unemployment benefits for many people as well as eliminating tax breaks for the middle class. Students graduating from college owe their first couple of years' salaries in education debt. Our schools need money. The NSA programs, not food stamps, education and unemployment compensation, should be the first to be cut in order to save money. We were a safe and happy country without the surveillance and collection of metadata.
On edit, Hayden sounds very much like a German NAZI (got an earful from one on a train out of Vienna one time. I was shaking when I got off the train. These guys are really bad, really scary.)
Power and secrecy -- sounds like Stalin or Hitler. That's not the America I want my grandkids to grow up in.
= new reply since forum marked as read
