MoneyWatch

Athena financial & insurance services, inc.

Registered Investment Advisors
Text Box: Is it okay for the government to spy on us to “protect” us from terrorism? The New York Times revealed last week that the National Security Administration was mining through the telephone and Internet communications of thousands of Americans without first seeking a warrant from Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) as required by the U.S. Patriot Act—even though the granting of such warrants is almost never denied. As expected, the Administration defended its illegal behavior by claiming it was necessary to protect the country from another 9-11 style attack. Governments typically use fear (in this case fear of terrorism) as an excuse to trample on our rights under the guise that the public welfare is at stake. Demanding that the NSA follow the law and secure the appropriate warrants before invading our privacy does not preclude them from doing their job or keeping us safe from terrorist threats. There was already a system and a court in place to handle the requests for domestic surveillance. In emergency cases, agents can eavesdrop for 72 hours before getting a warrant retroactively. And when they need a warrant, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has been more than compliant. According to published reports the FISC has received about 19,000 eavesdropping requests since it was created in 1978. It has denied only a handful. In 2004, there were more than 1,700 requests. Take a guess as to how many of those requests were rejected? Nada. Zero. Zilch. So even with a mechanism in place giving the NSA access to virtually any eavesdropping they deemed necessary, they took it upon themselves to ignore the law and be both the court and the police enforcement agency. The next time you find yourself wanting to forgive such behavior you might do well to remember what Benjamin Franklin once said about the sacrifice of individual freedoms: “a people who are willing to give up their liberty in exchange for security deserve neither.” Our forefathers understood the importance of preventing the government from engaging in unreasonable search and seizures or invading the sanctity of our home (or in this case our phone calls) without a warrant regardless of the reason. It’s called the 4th amendment. And how did our government react when the news of their unauthorized data mining was revealed? Instead of an apology and a promise to punish the wrongdoers and/or put in place a system to prevent future abuses the administration vowed to find the source of the leak. Pretty scary when you consider that a government of the people should be interested in protecting the rights of those people not ferreting out the whistleblowers who expose them when they don’t. At some point, the White House’s “War on Terror” became a war on the Bill of Rights. And while extraordinary measures are sometimes allowed during “times of war” no administration, no matter how well intentioned, should be allowed to supersede the law of the land unchecked indefinitely. What might have been reasonable immediately after 9-11, may no longer be and Americans certainly have the right to be asking questions. Unfortunately, many people dismiss the NSA’s activities under the basis that “they have nothing to hide” so therefore the government is free to sift through any or all of their personal information. But such thinking starts us down a very slippery slope with no bottom. If we condone unauthorized access to our phone calls or Internet surfing habits, which information should we be content to let them look at next in an effort to combat terrorism? The CD’s we buy? Our medical records? The church we choose to attend? I think not.▲

Big Brother is watching...

Volume 17, Issue 10

May 15, 2006

Guarding Freedom or Burying It?