A couple days ago I watched some of General Alexander's testimony before Congress about the National Security Agency phone and Internet data collection programs. As the Director he ought to know what's going on...right? Of course the questions we want to know the answers to are going to be asked in a secret, behind closed doors session that we will not know anything about for awhile. Basically, the Director spent his time justifying the NSA's data collection program.
Gen. Alexander's primary argument was that the program is important in stopping terrorist attacks. He cited a couple of examples and insinuated there were more. This, of course, is good news. As pushed by both the Bush and Obama administrations, this program is key in targeting potential threats to national security and in following up leads to stop such attacks. Terrorists have become more sophisticated in their use of modern communication to organize and coordinate their activities and the data mining and Internet watching programs are necessary to counter that ability.
The second popular argument is that if a normal American has nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear. This argument has come from various groups--the intelligence community, Democrats, Republicans, and the President. The flaw in this logic is if that is acceptable, then law enforcement should be able to search your home or business any time they want, no warrant needed--if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Prior to the 4th Amendmant practically every nation on earth could violate privacy at will. England used such tactics in colonial times, so the Founders countered that by requiring specific warrants from a third party, a judge.
Since 9/11 all Americans want to feel that their government is doing everything necessary to protect them. But does that include unrestricted snooping into your email or Facebook accounts? Does that include financial transactions you make online? Should the government collect basic information (caller #, called #, length of conversation, locations of cell devices, etc.) with no restrictions? What many Americans and counter-terrorism experts are forgetting is that restricting freedoms actually empowers the enemy. Terrorism has as its goal the overthrowing, changing, or influencing of political entities. Some terror movements like radical Islam also add a cultural component, but in either case terrorist groups want to undermine the government of the target to promote terror. Restricting our Constitutional liberties plays into the desires of the terrorists. If the enemy can show the government can not protect its people then more security will be demanded. The NSA program oversteps common sense and liberty which only aids the philosophical desires of the enemy.
This brings us back to the debate over security versus liberty. One of the few things Obama has said that is actually true was a statement he made about not being able to have 100% security and 100% liberty. Broadly cast security nets do little to promote security. Just having the capability to catalog everyone's private matters is too much. Where are the protections for citizens? Requesting a warrant when probable cause exists is prudent security work. Mining metadata that could be used in many ways (as shown by other recent scandals) is an infringement on freedom. Fear never leads to a safer society.
Posted with Blogsy
No comments:
Post a Comment