Even for national security hawks, 
NSA surveillance program an affront

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*

Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Four items in Friday’s Sentinel – Gary Harmon’s “Udall to brass:  Prove that surveillance stopped terrorism”; the editors’ “Flag Day and freedom, security and surveillance”; Josh Penry’s “Even for national security hawks, NSA surveillance program an affront”; and George Will’s “IRS official Lois Lerner provides reason for distrust of government” –  illustrate pervasive confusion over the content of our Constitution.

While I respect Senator Udall’s informed opinion as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and suspect that surveillance has indeed “stopped [some] terrorism”, Udall would have the NSA “prove a negative” – when there is ample historical evidence to presume the positive.

The Sentinel’s credibility is diminished by its still-unproven assertion that “Freedom of the press is under attack” by a Justice Department charged with enforcing laws enacted to prevent national security leaks, and by embracing the now-disproven canard that federal bureaucrats “used the tax code . . . to beat those holding dissenting political views into submission”. 

Rather than cite “paid liar” Darrell Issa’s irresponsible demagoguery as good reason to “distrust government”, George Will blames Lois Lerner for exercising—on sound advise of counsel—her Constitutional right to refuse to submit to Issa’s partisan “witch hunt”.

“Surveillance” implies a personalized intrusion into the privacy of individual citizens.
The Constitutional right to “privacy” is found only in the “penumbra” surrounding other rights.  The Fourth Amendment prohibits only “unreasonable searches and seizures”.

Arguably, the computerized capture of impersonal telephone numbers and millions of e-mails does not constitute unreasonably intrusive surveillance until governmental use of that database is personalized – which already requires a warrant under current laws.

By contrast, Republican-imposed requirements for medically unnecessary ultrasounds are personal, intrusive, and violative of women’s Constitutional right to medical privacy.

Until hypocritical ideologues like Penry, Issa, and Will, denounce such dubious invasions of personal security, they should be distrusted on issues of national security.

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Subscribe to print edition
Sign in to your account

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy