California Conservative

That’s what the debate will be about when they take up FISA reform. Here’s how David Rivkin and Lee Casey frame the debate in their WSJ op-ed. In my opinion, they’ve framed it perfectly.

Would any sane country purposefully limit its ability to spy on enemy communications in time of war? That is the question Congress must answer as it takes up reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Privacy activists, civil libertarians and congressional Democrats argue that both foreign and domestic eavesdropping must be subject to judicial scrutiny and oversight, even if this means drastically reducing the amount of foreign intelligence information available to the government, without ever acknowledging the costs involved. It is time the American people had an open and honest debate on the relative importance of privacy and security.

One of the sentences in that paragraph that I disagree with is when they say “It is time the American people had an open and honest debate on the relative importance of privacy and security.” It isn’t that it isn’t important to have such a debate. It’s that we’ve already had that debate. As usual, we’re waiting for the Democratic leadership, indeed all of Washington, to catch up. In poll after poll, the American people have overwhelmingly supported the NSA’s intercept program, which is what we’re really talking about here.

When this legislation was first debated, Democrats caved because they didn’t want to be blamed for terrorists’ communications reaching their destination without us listening in:

The measure would authorize the National Security Agency to intercept without a court order communications between people in the United States and foreign targets overseas.

The real debate is in the Democratic Party. In fact, it isn’t a debate as much as it is a all-out food fight. Here’s what MoveOn.org said:

“Enough is enough. We have to send a strong message to Congress that there is no trade-off between fundamental liberties and security,” MoveOn.org said on Tuesday.

“Preserving our Constitution is essential to our security; we can’t lead on freedom around the world when we’re actively undermining the rule of law at home.”

I’ve pointed out before that when MoveOn.org says jump, Democrats ask how high. That’s when the debate ends. Sort of. They’ll take their marching orders until the polls show how voting against FISA reform will seal their defeat next November. Then their strongest instinct kicks in: their re-election instinct.

Predictably, MoveOn.org is using misinformation to win:

A liberal advocacy group is blasting the Democrat-run Congress for giving the Bush administration “more unchecked power to wiretap Americans without a warrant.”

That’s blatant misinformation. For those who’ve paid attention, that tactic isn’t new to MoveOn.org. It’s predictable that organizations will use misinformation when they’re on the wrong side of an issue. In fact, I’d submit that using massive amounts of misinformation is the only way that they can win.

MoveOn.org will continue losing because they’re so focused on doing whatever they have to to accumulate political power. They’d be better off if they focused on getting on the right side of issues by thinking things through instead of promoting policies that are the opposite of what President Bush proposes.

Mssrs. Rivkin and Casey make a point I’ve made numerous times:

Warrantless surveillance is also constitutional. The Fourth Amendment prohibits only “unreasonable” searches and seizures. Although today’s privacy advocates routinely claim that warrantless searches are inherently unreasonable, that position is insupportable. The Supreme Court has repeatedly approved numerous warrantless searches, balancing the government’s interests against the relevant privacy expectations. Thus drivers can be subjected to sobriety checkpoints and international travelers are liable to search at the border.

THANK YOU!!! It’s long past time for this to be preached on a national stage. I first learned this truth when reading John Hinderaker’s post on the FISA exceptions. Until this morning, I hadn’t seen it discussed in a national publication such as the WSJ.

Read the entire op-ed. You won’t regret it.

Technorati Tags: NSA, FISA, WSJ, Intel, Fourth Amendment, MoveOn.org, Terrorism

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 30th, 2007 at 8:51 am and is filed under Author: Gary Gross, Election 2008, Homeland Security, Intel, Liberals, Special Interests, Terrorism, W. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.