It's one thing to protect us against terrorists. It's another to violate our rights in the process and leave us legally defenseless should we someday be wrongly implicated through such an illegal wiretap. It's another to blindly trust--with absolutely no oversight--that the government is not going beyond their stated scope and spying on citizens whom they deem to be political "enemies", conveniently redefined as "terrorist" suspects. One has only to look to the Nixon Watergate fiasco to know that presidents are not all trustworthy and that they can abuse their powers.
With no oversight, other than that of those involved in the NSA program in question, we are supposed to trust that the Government is doing what they are supposed to be doing without violating our rights. We are told to trust that they will not be tempted to use the program for other, non-terrorist related, political purposes.
With the government currently spying on domestic peace groups and keeping files on members of these groups, I, for one, do not trust this president or his cabal to "do the right thing." They have proven that, more often than not, they do quite the opposite--the most egregious example being how they took us to war in Iraq: by fixing the intelligence around their pre 9/11 desire to go to war. In other words, by lying.
So my question to Mr. Gonzales and his cohorts, as a citizen of the United States is this: What protections exist within the law for Americans to protect themselves should they be caught up in this spy program and accused of crimes of which they are innocent?
I don't see any. Do you?
Watching the Judicial hearings this morning, with Republicans on the committee trying to bolster the government's case rather than exercise oversight through probing questions regarding their constituent's rights, I am convinced it will take nothing less than the appointment of an independent council to investigate the NSA warrantless spy program.
Do You Know What They Know?
By Bob Herbert
The New York Times
Has the National Security Agency referred your name to the F.B.I. as a result of information it picked up from its illegal domestic eavesdropping program?
You don't know, do you? And the Bush administration, which has linked its mania for secrecy with its fetish for collecting data on Americans, is not saying.
The big problem related to this program, as far as the administration is concerned, is not its metastasizing threat to constitutional government, the rule of law, the privacy of innocent Americans, the venerable system of checks and balances, and the American way of life as we've known it.
No, the big problem for Bush & Co. — the thing that makes the president and his apologists apoplectic — is the mere fact that this domestic spying program has come to light. Investigations are under way to determine who might have leaked information about the supersecret program to The New York Times, which disclosed its existence, and others.
This is not a time for Congress or the media to bow before the intimidation tactics of a bullying administration. This is a time to heed the words of a federal judge named Damon Keith, who reminded us back in 2002 that "democracies die behind closed doors."
The attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, is scheduled to testify about the N.S.A. program today at a public hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Here are some of the questions that need to be asked:
Who is being spied upon, and why?
How many Americans here in the United States — or others who were lawfully in the country — have had their phone conversations or e-mails intercepted without a warrant?
Who determines what calls or e-mails are to be monitored in the U.S. without warrants, and what are their guidelines?
How many of those who were spied upon were found to have been involved in terror-related activities? How many were referred to the F.B.I. or other agencies for further investigation?
Of those who were referred, how many were cleared of wrongdoing?
What kind of information is being collected about people who are spied upon without warrants but are not referred to law enforcement agencies? How is that data being used, and how is it stored?
Is the government collecting information about the political views of the people who are being spied upon? With whom is that information being shared?
What has been the nature and the extent of the objections from people inside the government to the warrantless spying?
Until recently, no one was above the law in the U.S., not even the president. Richard Nixon was threatened with impeachment and run out of town for thumbing his nose at the Constitution. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about his sex life.
The Bush administration, by exploiting the very real fear of terrorism, and with the connivance of Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, has run roughshod over constitutional guarantees that had long been taken for granted. The prohibition against cruel and inhuman punishment? Habeas corpus? The right to face one's accuser? When it suits the Bush crowd, such protections are simply ignored.
The president would have you believe that the warrantless N.S.A. spy program is a very limited operation, narrowly focused on international communications involving "people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."
If that were true, there would be no reason not to get a warrant from the secret court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The most logical reason for not getting a warrant is that the president's intelligence acolytes, who behave as though they graduated from the Laurel and Hardy school of data mining, have not been able to demonstrate that the people being spied upon are connected to Al Qaeda or any other terror organization.
The National Security Agency sent so much useless information to the F.B.I. in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks that agents began to joke that the tips would result in more "calls to Pizza Hut." The Times reported that thousands of tips a month came pouring in, virtually all of them leading to dead ends or innocent Americans.
The American public needs to know what's really going on with this spy program. "Liberty," said John Adams, "cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people."
Photo credit: Bob Herbert (New York Times)
