I wrote this opinion the day before General Hayden was approved. Subsequent to said approval, President Bush said, "I look forward to working with...Negraponte, General Hayden...as we continue to address the challenges and threats we face in the 21st century." Challenges and threats which the President increased by invading Iraq.
The only no votes to Hayden's approval were Democrats Ron Wyden, Russ Feingold, and Even Bayh, and Republican Arlen Specter. My hat's off to these four who had the guts to protest and not just go along.
After 9/11, Vice President Cheney wanted to intercept domestic telephone calls and e-mails without warrants but was warned away by more cautious National Security Agency lawyers, owing to the measure's illegality, and especially since they were slammed in the 1990s for eavesdropping. But the nominee for director of the CIA, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then head of the NSA, ultimately created a collection program and sold it to the wary NSA officers and a not-so-wary President Bush.
A Cheney spokeswoman said the program "is terrorism surveillance, not domestic surveillance," and the V.P. further explained it as "a wartime measure...limited in scope." Limited? The serious problem with the vice president's reasoning is, as described by Bush: this "war on terrorism" is going to go on for many years.
The trouble is, terrorism will remain with us for as long as our soldiers' boots are on the ground anywhere in the Middle East. Which means a very long "wartime measure." Decades? Decades of data collection?
Under a dictatorial government, police may search and seize your property without providing justifications or legal warrants. It follows that a dictatorship having unwarranted access to collected data, such as telecommunications and e-mail, will not consider this an invasion of privacy but merely a way of closely monitoring its citizens, like it or not. On the other hand, as intended by our founding fathers, we supposedly live in a free society, able to express ourselves without fear of reprisals for independent thinking, to speak openly in opposition to our government when necessary. Additionally, protected by the Fourth Amendment, we expect a right to privacy, to be able to communicate with others without intrusion.
With that said, it appears that no matter the rationale — "security" or otherwise — because of this administration's creative and of the moment interpretations of our laws, the NSA's data collection ultimately undermines our precious Bill Of Rights, in which the meaning of Amendment Four has been explicitly stated for any reasonably intelligent human being to grasp. It's quite clear to me and others that this secret agency, under the guidance of General Hayden, is almost certainly violating our rights with the approval of his boss, President Bush, as surely as a burglar who breaks and enters our homes. Assuming the General is approved, can we now expect domestic spying from the CIA? It would not be the first time.
Article comments
1 - Joey
I have read it as the "New Normalcy" Thanks Osama!
2 - Joey
Acutally the book you cite, doesn't really describe the CIA... but historically recounts the NSA infrastructure at signal intelligence. Data collection, mostly involving the HF frequency spectrum. Engaging years, to be sure. But over. Satellites, networks etc... has brought us into a new era... which this book doesn't really get into. But for a historical overview of what came before, it's a good read.
3 - Bliffle
"Those of us who believe we have nothing to fear from this kind of government intrusion because we have nothing criminal or treasonous to hide,..."
A bad premise, though often thoughtlessly used. First, everyone has SOMETHING to hide, even those few among us like you and me, who have only something embarrassing to hide, not something criminal. We've all seen how a mere embarassment can be used against someone to induce a criminal act. Second, the spys could attribute anything against a person and refuse to reveal the evidence because of a feigned desire for secrecy.
4 - uncle sammy says
You are correct, Bliffle, though I don't see it as a bad premise, since what I had in mind was that many people do not take the embarrassment factor into account. Blackmail is an old story and the servants of administrations may not be above its use; especially run-amucks like the FBI's Hoover who scared the pants off presidents and senators alike, perhaps as a consequence altering policy.
5 - uncle sammy says
Joey, you are better read than I am. Thanks.
6 - Dave Nalle
When you go looking for evil you find it, whether it's there or not, eh.
Dave
7 - uncle sammy says
Dave, one finds evil only if it's there.
8 - Dave Nalle
I wish that were the case, but as you demonstrate in this article, you can paint anything evil if you want to see evil badly enough.
Dave
9 - uncle sammy says
I don't think I used the word "evil" anywhere in my piece, Dave. What I've seen in this administration is a recent history of deception and a misuse of power. Therefore I seldom trust their motives in anything they do. I always considerd myself a political moderate, not given to leftist opinions. It is only since watching Bush/Cheney operate that I decided to build a website to protest, to have a voice. Got tired of frowning at the TV, frankly.
Anyway, "evil" is Bush's favorite word, not mine.
10 - Bliffle
"Dave, one finds evil only if it's there."
Ahhh. Then those women who were killed in Salem really WERE witches! At last, the truth is known.
11 - uncle sammy says
Really? Golly and gee whiz. And here I thought the witches were merely the first feminists being put to the torch by the same ol', same ol' chauvinist pigs one step removed from the current Taliban guys.
I think the first time I heard the word "evil" was on the radio in the 1930s: "Evil lurks in the hearts of men. The Shadow knows. Heh-heh."
12 - Bliffle
The thing that bothered me about the Hayden Hearings was his frequent statement that "we checked it out with lawyers and it was OK", and that people accepted this statement so readily. It's a mistake to let policy be set by an anonymous group of lawyers.
13 - uncle sammy says
Bothered me as well. While nowhere comparing the two--I'm sure John Gotti checked often with his lawyer, too. In any case, the truth is that early on Hayden was warned away from doing what he ultimately did by the NSA lawyers. It was Bush who gave the green light to the program. I've no doubt Hayden is extremely well suited for the job. It's the administration he works for that bothers me. The legislative branch should check and balance the executive, and the executive should exert control over its intelligence branch, according to the First Amendment. Don't hold your breath about the latter.