It appears, quite clearly to me, that much confusion abounds regarding the President's secret NSA domestic spying program. The argument has been framed in such a way as to suggest that if you do not favor the President's actions in continuing his secretive, unitary, unchecked, spy powers then somehow you are against spying on terrorists. Well intentioned citizens repeat the mantra that says, "I have nothing to hide...go ahead and wiretap me". In other words, we need to sacrifice some liberties to remain safe. This is how they frame the debate. An either/or scenario. Either you must be willing to give up some liberties and freedoms, afforded by the 1st and 4th Amendments, or the terrorists will have an advantage.
This premise for this argument is false, and dangerous to our freedoms and Constitution.
We have seen examples of unchecked spy programs by our Government throughout the 20th century.
We know the damage to innocent lives, and free expression of thought, these programs have done. Be it through bribery and extortion, or political blackmail, information is power and unchecked domestic spying can be used for a myriad of nefarious purposes, in the quest for selfish power.
The fact is that we can have both.
Both security AND freedom.
We can maintain our liberty while spying on those who plan to do us harm. This isn't an either/or issue as many well intentioned, yet mislead citizens have argued, in their support for President Bush.
No one I know is against spying...no one. Right/Left, Conservative/Liberal, Dem/Repub, not one person.
What is at stake here is whether or not we want to grant the Executive Branch the power to spy on us, with no judicial oversight (no matter which party is in office).
The FISA court was established, in 1978, for oversight following the Nixon abuses of power. Since 9/11 it has been updated something like 5 times to accommodate the changing times. Since it's inception, out of the thousands of spy warrant requests, only 4 or 5 have been denied. This court is so liberal in it's approval that a retroactive warrants are issued within 72 hours of the start of spying.
No one is asking that this program's operational details become public. No one is asking that spying on terrorist not take place. The Congressmen, both Republican and Democratic have offered closed door sessions. This is how a check and balance system works. It remains secret and yet checked at the same time by a select few. The FISA court handles this all the time with a 3-4 judge panel.
The questions here are:
Since FISA does not hinder or stop legitimate spying on terrorists then why did the President not follow it?
If FISA was so outdated, as the President claims, then why didn't he go to Congress and alert them of the so-called problem, where they could then change the law if necessary?
And furthermore why, in April of 2004 did he maintain he was following it?
VIDEO:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/bush-caught-on-tape/With the government dominated now by one party rule the Congress has lost sight of it's role, namely being the overseer of the Executive Branch.
It is not surprising that hearings into this program are being stifled.
Surely if 70 million dollars can be spent on independent council Ken Starr, to investigate Clinton/Lewinsky, then how much more valuable is the preservation of our Bill of Rights?
When listening to the framing of this debate remember:
It is NOT an either/or choice.
We can have both a classified "check and balance" system that preserves our rights AND spies effectively on those that would do us harm.
I will close with the famous Ben Franklin quote:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
