Un-warranted Spying
It was recently revealed to the American public that its government has bestowed upon itself the ability to tap into phone calls and e-mails without a warrant. President Bush deems this power necessary in order to protect the American people from the spector of terrorism. Although the National Security Agency previously held a similar authority in phone tapping and e-mail eavesdropping, the expanded rules on the subject now allow for spying without the cumbersome requirement of obtaining a warrant prior to the event. Despite there being a special court that acts not only swiftly (within a matter of hours) but also with extremely little resistance (it hardly ever turns down a request for a warrant), the administration has determined that there are cases in which they would prefer to bypass the courts. Justice Department lawyer John Yoo defended the move by writing that in "troubled times" such actions are a necessity in order to preserve the nation's security. The problem with that argument stems from its lack of defining boundaries. Who determines when times are troubled, or how troubled they need to be before the government may take such actions? While there has always been a fine balance between civil liberties and national security, should we really sacrifice the former in the name of the latter? Not without some grave consideration as to the results of this experiment surely. Especially when the latter has not been proven to provide any major benefit over our existing model. But Mr. Bush seems to have grown comfortbale in acting unilaterally against anyone who he perceives to be a threat - be they terrorist, friendly nation, Democrat, or the American public.
This president, who often beats the drum of patriotism and American "values" when attempting to justify anything remotely controversial regarding his anti-terrorism policy, is trampling all over them with his new one. If he truly believed in the preservation of American values, he would recognize that foremost amongst them are our civil liberties. It is precisely this that separates us from the terrorist-sponsoring states that Mr. Bush so frequently rails against. Giving up our civil liberties in order to save them is the type of circuitous logic this country doesn't need to hear from its leaders.
Another disturbing feature of this policy is the arbitrary nature of the extension of authority and the lack of a standardized policy in determining what would constitute such extreme circumstances that the NSA would bypass the special courts. If the president decides where the bar is and decides how "troubled" the circumstances are and when such spying is warranted, then there's no limiting his power - in peacetime or wartime. It is exactly this type of dictatorial rule that the Founding Fathers safeguarded against when they established a system of checks and balances. But Mr. Bush brazenly flouts the Constitution even as he attempts to wrap his policies in it. Mr. Bush, when questioned on the subject reflexively launched into a familiar song. He claimed that the revelation of this program was in itself aiding the terrorist effort. And when questioned about the legal authority of this program, he said he asked and answered that question himself, and came close to implying that simply by virtue of being the president, anything he did was within the limits of the law. Putting aside Mr. Bush's personal fallibility, even if this administration was beyond reproach in their intentions (though their actions thus far do not give us cause to believe so) and could be trusted not to abuse this controversial new power, there are no provisions in place to force future administrations to exercise the same restraint. Hence the inherent danger in subverting the law, even for a "noble" cause, and putting measures such into place without the approval of another branch of government.
And while Mr. Bush vehemently advocates this form of spying as being necessary to combat terrorism, it is impossible for the rest of us to know whether or not it is - if the NSA is not being held accountable to any other branch of government and neither is the president, there is no possible way we can impose limits on this power or combat it should it start to get out of control. And then we're just back in 1984.