As intelligence officials testify on Capitol Hill today
that more than 50 terrorist plots and activities were halted by the NSA
surveillance programs, it seems clear that a case is being made that the
anti-terror program works well.
that more than 50 terrorist plots and activities were halted by the NSA
surveillance programs, it seems clear that a case is being made that the
anti-terror program works well.
Strong arguments have also been made by pundits that the
collection of phone numbers involved in billions of phone calls is not an
invasion of privacy or a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is a discomforting
but necessary effort in the post-9/11 world. And as long it is not abused – no evidence
of malfeasance has surfaced – it will likely continue unabated for many years.
collection of phone numbers involved in billions of phone calls is not an
invasion of privacy or a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is a discomforting
but necessary effort in the post-9/11 world. And as long it is not abused – no evidence
of malfeasance has surfaced – it will likely continue unabated for many years.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, a regular on
Fox News, parts company with many of his Republican allies on this issue. In
his latest piece for The Washington Post, Krauthammer compares the NSA
activities to the Postal Service making a record of information on the outside
of an envelope – a power that was granted in a 1978 federal court case.
Fox News, parts company with many of his Republican allies on this issue. In
his latest piece for The Washington Post, Krauthammer compares the NSA
activities to the Postal Service making a record of information on the outside
of an envelope – a power that was granted in a 1978 federal court case.
Here is Krauthammer’s astute explanation:
“The National Security Agency’s recording of U.S. phone
data … records who is calling whom – the outside of the envelope, as it were.
The content of the conversation, however is like the letter inside the
envelope. It may not be opened without a court order.
data … records who is calling whom – the outside of the envelope, as it were.
The content of the conversation, however is like the letter inside the
envelope. It may not be opened without a court order.
“The constitutional basis for this is simple: The Fourth
Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and there is no
reasonable expectation of privacy for what’s written on an envelope. It’s
dropped in a public mailbox, read by workers at the collection center and read
once again by the letter carrier. It’s already openly shared, much as your
phone records are shared with, recorded by, and (e)mailed back to you by a
third party, namely the phone company.”
Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and there is no
reasonable expectation of privacy for what’s written on an envelope. It’s
dropped in a public mailbox, read by workers at the collection center and read
once again by the letter carrier. It’s already openly shared, much as your
phone records are shared with, recorded by, and (e)mailed back to you by a
third party, namely the phone company.”
Tom Friedman, a centrist columnist for the New York
Times, picks up the argument from there, making the case that the liberals and
libertarians opposed to the surveillance program seem to believe that “the only thing we have to fear is
government intrusion in our lives, not the intrusion of those who gather in
secret cells in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan and plot how to topple our
tallest buildings or bring down U.S. airliners with bombs planted inside
underwear, tennis shoes or computer printers.”
Times, picks up the argument from there, making the case that the liberals and
libertarians opposed to the surveillance program seem to believe that “the only thing we have to fear is
government intrusion in our lives, not the intrusion of those who gather in
secret cells in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan and plot how to topple our
tallest buildings or bring down U.S. airliners with bombs planted inside
underwear, tennis shoes or computer printers.”
Friedman wrote that the NSA’s goal is prevent another 9/11
and failure in that effort would have far-reaching implications in the war on
terror that would extend beyond the loss of blood and treasure. Here’s his
take:
and failure in that effort would have far-reaching implications in the war on
terror that would extend beyond the loss of blood and treasure. Here’s his
take:
“Yes, I worry about potential government abuse of privacy
from a program designed to prevent another 9/11 — abuse that, so far, does not
appear to have happened. But I worry even more about another 9/11. That is, I
worry about something that’s already happened once — that was staggeringly
costly — and that terrorists aspire to repeat.
from a program designed to prevent another 9/11 — abuse that, so far, does not
appear to have happened. But I worry even more about another 9/11. That is, I
worry about something that’s already happened once — that was staggeringly
costly — and that terrorists aspire to repeat.
“I worry about that even more, not because I don’t care
about civil liberties, but because what I cherish most about America is our
open society, and I believe that if there is one more 9/11 — or worse, an
attack involving nuclear material — it could lead to the end of the open
society as we know it. If there were another 9/11, I fear that 99 percent of
Americans would tell their members of Congress: “Do whatever you need to do to,
privacy be damned, just make sure this does not happen again.” That is what I fear most.”
about civil liberties, but because what I cherish most about America is our
open society, and I believe that if there is one more 9/11 — or worse, an
attack involving nuclear material — it could lead to the end of the open
society as we know it. If there were another 9/11, I fear that 99 percent of
Americans would tell their members of Congress: “Do whatever you need to do to,
privacy be damned, just make sure this does not happen again.” That is what I fear most.”
