“…we can accomplish this mission…”
Senator Olympia J. Snowe, (R) Maine, in a letter to Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, May 17, 2006:
As a member of Congress and the Senate Intelligence Committee, I understand the urgency and the necessity of using every tool that we have to target the terrorists who wish to do us harm. I likewise have long maintained that we can accomplish this mission without sacrificing or compromising the freedoms that we as Americans hold dear, including the right to be free of illegal searches and seizures.
I’m proud to have Senator Snowe as a representative of our state. For years, I’ve been trying to find a way to say the same thing so concisely. I sent a letter to thank her.
Comments
I don’t know… it sounds like she’s trying to have it both ways. There will always be a trade-off between national security and civil liberties, and the question is how much of one you’re willing to sacrifice for the sake of the other. Clearly you can’t use “every tool that we have” if certain types of possible searches are off-limits; by restricting the types of investigations that intelligence officials can conduct, you necessarily make the country more vulnerable to terrorism. For my part, I’d tend to defer to the needs of national security since civil liberties don’t mean much to me if I’m dead, but I’d still insist on clear and convincing evidence that such investigations are needed before allowing them.
You could also continuously monitor everyone and shut off our country to anyone who wants to come in at all. My point: there’s a line of practicality that has to be drawn.
I believe Senator Snowe was saying that tools should be used when appropriate. Should government agencies be allowed to pry into the lives of people who have solid evidence of terrorism-related behavior? That’s a tough call to me, but I think the answer should be yes. Should they be allowed to monitor everyone on the off chance of catching something relating to terrorism? I don’t think so. Where do you draw the line between a possible terrorist and a protestor or someone who feels the need to exercise their First Amendment rights and speak out against the government? That line is too gray to go unchecked for me.
This reveals a larger, broader issue dealing with checks and balances (or the current lack thereof) in government. That was the real theme of my letter to Senator Snowe, but I found that the wiretapping provided a good example of the issue.
And – here I go being Democratic again – why was more fuss made about a President’s personal life (1998) than is being made about one’s professional life and his incorrect interpretation of the power of his governmental branch?
Anyway. Here’s a relevant exerpt of my letter to Senator Snowe:
Civil liberties might not mean much if you’re dead, but if your life becomes so controlled by the government that you can’t enjoy it, is there much of a difference?