Scary Story
If you want to read a scary story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?hp&ex=1134795600&en=c7596fe0d4798785&ei=5094&partner=homepage
So, the government's been spying on us for 3 years now. Now, to be fair, US doesn't mean EVERYBODY. The article states that best guess is a rotating cycle of 500 suspcious citizens. However, the critical aspect of this is that the NSA's been spying on us without Federally issued warrents. In fact, the New York Times article that "there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A. The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and does not have to seek approval from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials." Wow. How's that for unchecked power?
I think the implication of the article is that these powers were given to the NSA by Bush after 9/11. The rampant fear of safety that blew through the country in 2001/2002 allowed the NSA a justifiable base to go fishing for any suspected terrorists. However, I'm concerned more about the implication of this action. Just like with the Iraq war, the checks and balances that are supposed to be in place in our government failed and we took an unregulated, unneccessary amount of action that we probably shouldn't have any right to. "[T]hey said most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime." Yet, our NSA feels the unmitigated need to spy on citizens who have a right to privacy. I know that privacy feels more like a myth than a fact in this current age of information but there should still be a certain amount expected. Constitutional issues abound from this stunning revelation. Is this legal? Is this constitutional? There are arguments on both sides of the table and the one I'm most swayed by is the idea that this would constitute an illegal search. After all, email should be treated like mail. Tampering with it should be considered a violation of Federal laws. Yet, the NSA doesn't feel bound by these standards.
I'm not going to argue that the program doesn't have any validity. It does stand to reason that if we listen in to every phone call we could stop many terrorist threats before they become actual threats. That being said, we're staring down the barrel of the line the divides Totalitarianism and Democracy. Can we persecute people based on their thoughts? Their feelings? Their opinions?
By the way, when one of your own officials says: "Seeking Congressional approval was also viewed as politically risky because the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds," that should be a clue.
What would have happened if they had heard something really important? What if they had heard some sort of crucial clue? Is this evidence admissible? Any lawyer worth his salt can probably argue this one outta the court. Then what? Is this even the best course of action? Did civil liberities get violated for no good reason?
The big questions is: now what? Now that the New York Times have released this story after sitting on it for a year, what are we going to do as a society? Hopefully we learn and grow and try to avoid the same mistakes again and again. Hopefully we tell the NSA that this type of action is wrong. Hopefully we pass laws that strictly regulate illegal searches and Constitutional violations. Hopefully we never have to deal with this blatant disregard for basic human rights again. Then again, if wishes were horses...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?hp&ex=1134795600&en=c7596fe0d4798785&ei=5094&partner=homepage
So, the government's been spying on us for 3 years now. Now, to be fair, US doesn't mean EVERYBODY. The article states that best guess is a rotating cycle of 500 suspcious citizens. However, the critical aspect of this is that the NSA's been spying on us without Federally issued warrents. In fact, the New York Times article that "there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A. The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and does not have to seek approval from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials." Wow. How's that for unchecked power?
I think the implication of the article is that these powers were given to the NSA by Bush after 9/11. The rampant fear of safety that blew through the country in 2001/2002 allowed the NSA a justifiable base to go fishing for any suspected terrorists. However, I'm concerned more about the implication of this action. Just like with the Iraq war, the checks and balances that are supposed to be in place in our government failed and we took an unregulated, unneccessary amount of action that we probably shouldn't have any right to. "[T]hey said most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime." Yet, our NSA feels the unmitigated need to spy on citizens who have a right to privacy. I know that privacy feels more like a myth than a fact in this current age of information but there should still be a certain amount expected. Constitutional issues abound from this stunning revelation. Is this legal? Is this constitutional? There are arguments on both sides of the table and the one I'm most swayed by is the idea that this would constitute an illegal search. After all, email should be treated like mail. Tampering with it should be considered a violation of Federal laws. Yet, the NSA doesn't feel bound by these standards.
I'm not going to argue that the program doesn't have any validity. It does stand to reason that if we listen in to every phone call we could stop many terrorist threats before they become actual threats. That being said, we're staring down the barrel of the line the divides Totalitarianism and Democracy. Can we persecute people based on their thoughts? Their feelings? Their opinions?
By the way, when one of your own officials says: "Seeking Congressional approval was also viewed as politically risky because the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds," that should be a clue.
What would have happened if they had heard something really important? What if they had heard some sort of crucial clue? Is this evidence admissible? Any lawyer worth his salt can probably argue this one outta the court. Then what? Is this even the best course of action? Did civil liberities get violated for no good reason?
The big questions is: now what? Now that the New York Times have released this story after sitting on it for a year, what are we going to do as a society? Hopefully we learn and grow and try to avoid the same mistakes again and again. Hopefully we tell the NSA that this type of action is wrong. Hopefully we pass laws that strictly regulate illegal searches and Constitutional violations. Hopefully we never have to deal with this blatant disregard for basic human rights again. Then again, if wishes were horses...
posted by Chris "Krang" Yang | 1:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home