Apparently, snowballs do have a chance of not melting in the
fiery furnace. A Hartford paper reported
over the weekend that all seven members of Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional Delegation
have “offered sharp criticism after newspapers revealed the administration’s
sweeping government surveillance programs, which monitor cellphone and internet
traffic in the name of national security.”
U.S. Representative Jim Himes, a member of the House
Intelligence Committee, thought the monitoring program was too intense and
overbroad: “I feel like the government is breaking all kinds of precedent here
in increasing the intensity of its surveillance. There's a balance to be struck
and generally it feels like we have lost that balance in favor of
over-intrusive investigation and [data] collection."
Having opposed covert national security operations during
the administration of George Bush, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy had little choice
but to object to the expansion of the program under President Barack Obama. Not
to do so would have been to expose oneself to charges of hypocrisy. In the
Christian ethical sphere, there are seven deadly sins; among journalists, there
is only one – hypocrisy.
Mr. Murphy said, “Increasingly, our anti-terrorism efforts
are happening outside the full view of the public and Congress. Whether you're
talking about the drone program or the [National Security Agency], the way we
fight wars today involves doing more things than ever in a covert manner. It
makes it hard to do real oversight when we don't know or can't talk about these
things in open session."
This is a juvenile view of covert operations; it simply
assumes that covert operations in the modern age need not be covert. Currently there are more than a
hundred organizations officially
designated as terrorist by various non-terrorist governments. The planted axiom
in Mr. Murphy’s worldview is that the executive department of the United States
may wait until the U.S. Congress nods its approval before security agencies in
the United States collect data that may frustrate the ambitions of, to mention
but one terrorist organization among many, al Qaeda -- which, despite the view
of Mr. Obama, is gathering strength in the frost that has followed the so
called “Arab Spring.” The crowd of protesters that surrounded the embassy in
Cairo before terrorists assaulted the consulate in Benghazi was shouting, “Obama,
Obama, we are a thousand Osamas.” Listening to Mr. Murphy on national security,
one begins to lament the loss to the U.S. Senate of Joe Lieberman.
The “balance”
between liberty and security was much on the mind of U.S. Representatives Joe
Courtney and John Larson. Members of Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional
delegation, Mr. Courtney said, were poorly informed by Mr. Obama. “The
notion that there was some broad based information-sharing with all members of
Congress is not correct," Mr. Larson said. "I certainly respect the
President's intentions and President Bush's before him, and the awesome
responsibility that comes with wanting to make sure the nation is safe and
secure but I remain convinced we have to be exceeding cautious in giving up our
civil liberties. Everyone wants to get the bad guys, but what are we willing to
give up for that?" Not immediately available for comment, U.S.
Representative Rosa DeLauro mailed in a Hallmark card: She was “deeply
concerned,” as was U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty.
The ever cautious U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal was,
according to one report, “awaiting more answers.” Putting on his former
Attorney General’s hat, Mr. Blumenthal acknowledged that the surveillance
practices “feel very intrusive and invasive of potential rights. We have to
know what the extent of it was. If it was simply widespread, random without
limitations or any sort of probable cause, there might be a case that it should
not have been undertaken."
One wonders whether Mr. Blumenthal had in mind the “potential
rights” outlined in the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which plainly
states: “The right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
An opinion from Mr. Blumenthal – no stranger to affidavits during his more than 20 years’ service as Connecticut’s Attorney General – on the
questionable affidavit that was used by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s
office to allow an unprecedented search of Fox News reporter James Rosen’s private information
would be most helpful.
Perhaps the chief question unaddressed by the members of Connecticut’s
all Democratic U.S. Congressional delegation is this: At what point does the secret and massive accumulation of raw data become counterproductive? In a haystack
so enlarged, does it not become progressively more difficult to find such needles
as, say, the Boston bombers? Is there a point of diminishing returns in data
collection? When is more less?
Comments