Resisting the Surveillance State

Townhall.com ^ | July 28, 2013 | Steve Chapman

[Kaslin]

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney spent eight years choking personal privacy to within an inch of its life. After they were done, Barack Obama showed up, expressed heartfelt sympathy and stood on its throat. But despite their efforts, it isn't quite dead. Last week, it showed definite signs of life.

That happened thanks to the combined efforts of people in Congress on the right and the left who assembled under a figurative banner reading, "They're liars and we don't trust them." Appalled by the mass collection of phone records by the National Security Agency, they proposed that such surveillance be limited to individuals who are actually being investigated.

It's not a radical idea. In fact, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution -- no "unreasonable searches and seizures" -- has always meant the authorities couldn't ransack your home or your papers without a reason to think you've done something wrong. The administration takes the opposite approach. It insists it has to monitor millions of people continuously to find the few who are actually dangerous.

As the House considered the matter, President Obama and his subordinates tried to sow panic. His former national security adviser, James Jones, wrote a letter to insist, "Denying the NSA such access to data will leave the nation at risk."

The House Republican and Democratic leaders finally embraced that bipartisanship some people are always urging. Joining the chorus was Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who said the limitation would serve "those who are seeking to achieve the goals of Islamic jihad."

The proponents say all this data has to be assembled not so the government can learn whom you're calling but so it can find telltale patterns betraying terrorist activity. But it's not apparent that the dragnet has done any good at all in combating our enemies.

Julian Sanchez, an analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, points out that when NSA Director Keith Alexander was grilled at a June House hearing about whether the program had stopped any plot, he "would not identify even a single case in which the bulk phone records collection had been 'essential,' or even claim that there was such a case that he couldn't discuss specifically."

Not that he or his boss ever planned on having to discuss the effort. For years they kept it secret from the American people, among others, and they would have gone on operating in that fashion. Obama said the other day he "welcomes a debate" on the program -- though that debate came about only because of a whistleblower whom the administration wants to send to prison.

The scope of the surveillance came as a surprise even to the architect of the Patriot Act, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. The section the administration used to authorize the program, said Sensenbrenner, "was originally drafted to prevent data mining" of this sort.

Obama's interpretation is like reading the Ten Commandments to endorse murder and adultery -- not plausible, and not at all what the author meant. The House measure aimed to restore something resembling what Congress had in mind.

There is no reason to believe that when it comes to seizing records, more is better. Police will have better luck nabbing criminals if they focus on people who have done something suspicious than if they stop and frisk everyone who walks down the street.

If you don't know how to locate fish, moving from a small lake to the Atlantic Ocean is not going to boost your catch. Nor are giant drift nets that scoop up every creature in the sea going to help you find a small and rare one.

This is not idle theorizing. William Binney, who once ran the NSA's global digital data gathering program, told The Daily Caller, "They're making themselves dysfunctional by collecting all of this data."

They are also compromising the privacy of millions of innocent Americans. Many people think they have no cause for worry because they have nothing to hide. If you're one of those, please send me your email address and password.

Fortunately, 205 House members saw through the fear-mongering to demand that our lives be free of relentless inspection by our overseers. A majority of Democrats and a large share of Republicans acted as though it's not too late to rescue our privacy from the maw of the surveillance state.

No thanks to Obama, John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi, but maybe it's not.

[Kaslin]

I agree what a reader wrote in the reply:

"Bush and Cheney were "pikers" compared to Obama. Bush and Cheney were interested in protecting Americans from foreign and domestic terrorists. Obama is interested in destroying his political opposition! He doesn't give a whit about terrorism!

There is a huge difference here"!

[svcw]

Bingo

[DoughtyOne]

You're right as far as your comments go.  I must add though..., when you initiate new laws, you MUST determine if they will be able to be used by the criminally minded once you have left the stage.

In this Bush and Cheney really screwed U. S. Citizens over.  The House and the Senate played a large part in this role though.  It was a collective effort with disasterous results.

FOLKS, THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN, PLEASE CLICK HERE AND PENCIL IN YOUR DONATION TO HELP END THIS FREEPATHON.  THANK YOU!
...this is a general all purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

[tomkat]

             

[Kip Russell]

I recall reading a science fiction novel in which surveillance becomes so pervasive (far more so than in any country today) that you can essentially watch anyone, anywhere, at any time...with the result that younger people don’t hesitate to have sex in public, because what difference does it make?

[logic101.net]

when you initiate new laws, you MUST determine if they will be able to be used by the criminally minded once you have left the stage.

The law was clear enough, the problem is that these people don’t care about the law, any law. Unless they can use it to their advantage they will just ignore it. Laws do not limit the lawless.

Hope and Change.

[Travis McGee]

Shut up and be a good comrade, or we might "find" kiddie porn on your computer, or "lose" your Obamacare records!

[DoughtyOne]

Well Logic101, evidently it wasn’t was it.

You’re kiddin yourself.

[antidisestablishment]

“Law and Order Conservatives” are constantly surprised when the left comes into power and turns the tables. How can anyone who calls themself conservative grant the leviathan such unconstitutional powers? Not only do “conservatives” initiate such programs, they defend them as invaluable even when they are used without restraint. Creating programs such as this without expecting that they will become tools of tyranny is the height of stupidity.

Proponents can claim all day that the programs are wonderful tools, but the fact is that they are not useful for preempting terrorist attacks. They are, however, wonderful tools for targeting individuals who don’t agree with the current powers that be.

[Nuc 1.1]

Good bumper sticker.

[duffee]

Yes, we are in more danger from our own government than we are from invasion or terrorist. Our government agencies had the information 911 was coming and the information to stop it but government is too big and agencies jealousies of each other prevented them from sharing information and from doing what they were created to do, prevent terrorists actions. Big government democrats and Republicans “took advantage of the crisis”. Now we have the NSA spying on all of us. I don’t believe it has nearly as much to do with terrorists as taking complete control of our populace that will within a few years make the East Germans look like libertarians.

[VerySadAmerican]

We are at that point. Every cell phone has a camera. And do we really know where the phones send the pictures?

[Slambat]

Yes, but like a liberal they didn’t take into account
the unintended consequences. And then stood by there and
did nothing and said nothing while a known communist
fraud was elected. He knew Obama would turn the NSA loose
on Americans. Yet not a word.

[antidisestablishment]

unintended consequences

ROTFLMAO! That's a good one!

[af_vet_rr]

"Bush and Cheney were "pikers" compared to Obama. Bush and Cheney were interested in protecting Americans from foreign and domestic terrorists.

Go back and tell all of these FReepers who were warning about this stuff that they were wrong:

Total Information Awareness (TIA) System - Nov 25, 2002 (Free Republic)

EPIC.org Total Information Awareness (TIA) News Nov 25, 2002 (Free Republic)

Critics say Defense 'Total Information Awareness' Impractical - Dec 12, 2002 (Free Republic)

TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS (TIA) UPDATE - Feb 7, 2003 (Free Republic)

Pentagon spy database funding revealed (Total Information Awareness ) - Feb 27, 2003 (Free Republic)

Total Information Awareness Project Undergoes First Test - Apr 10, 2003 (Free Republic)

U.S. Pressing for High-Tech Spy Tools (Total Information Awareness) - Feb 22, 2004 (Free Republic)

U.S. Still Mining Terror Data (Total Information Awareness Program) - Feb 23, 2004 (Free Republic)

Total Information Awareness - Mar 8, 2007 (Free Republic)

[af_vet_rr]

"Bush and Cheney were "pikers" compared to Obama. Bush and Cheney were interested in protecting Americans from foreign and domestic terrorists.

By the way, no matter how you look back upon their actions, they were creating and refining the tools that would be used against our freedom. It would be awfully naive to think the Democrats would never win the WH and Congress, or part of it, again, and Bush/Cheney knew full well that such tools could and would be abused, just based on the previous administration.

[gogeo]

There is a huge difference here"!

True.

I believe Cheney and W were honest, if a bit naïve.

I have no problem with a government that they run having those powers.

The problem comes when an Obama is elected, as he will surely be.

We don't limit government because of the George Washingtons.

We limit government because of the Obamas.

I wish Dick Cheney would remember that when he defends the program.

[okie01]

We don't limit government because of the George Washingtons.

We limit government because of the Obamas.

I wish Dick Cheney would remember that when he defends the program.

True.

But the history is that the Clintons and the Obamas will proceed as they wish, ignoring the law. While the Bushes (and Cheneys) will rigorously respect the law.

Thus, it's not a question of what the law is. But, rather, it's a question of the character of the man we elect.

There are many features that qualify a man for the presidency. But the most important one, by far, is character.

By this measure, Clinton and Obama should've been unrated "unqualified" from the outset.

[supercat]

“Law and Order Conservatives”

Unfortunately, many people who call themselves "law-and-order conservatives" fail to recognize that the first and foremost requirement for true and lasting "law and order" is a government whose level of obedience to the law is greater than what it demands of the citizenry. If a person employed as a police officer were to break into 744 Evergreen Terrace and accost the occupants thereof while holding a warrant for 742 Evergreen Terrace, such a person would be a robber and should be regarded as such. I would posit that those who who would decline to prosecute such a person because of his employment are not really "law-and-order" conservatives, because failure to prosecute such robbers favors neither law nor order, and allowing people to escape the consequences of their actions is not conservative.

[grania]

I believe Cheney and W were honest, if a bit naive.

Assuming that's the case, they were extraordinarily illogical. All of the 911 terrorists were in the US illegally. The logical response would've been to become very vigilent about who could get into and stay in the US.