The Case for Surveillance
Many of the Democrats supported the warrantless listening because they feared the political consequences of a terrorist attack occurring while they were on summer vacation--and because they had not taken the lead to plug the electronic intelligence gap. The Democrats have been politically vulnerable on national security and counterterrorism going back to the days of Jimmy Carter, who was so naive about the intentions of the Soviet Union when it invaded Afghanistan. (And Carter is still willing to accommodate some of the most hostile enemies of the United States.)
Even now, Democrats are focusing on the scariest possible interpretation of the new law, ignoring its well-crafted rules to protect Americans. In addition to putting in the six-month expiration, they have failed to provide liability protection to U.S. telecommunication companies. Some of these have stopped cooperating with the National Security Agency since the program was exposed.
The Democrats should think again. Their concerns for American liberty are commendable, but if there is a serious terrorist attack, the outcry from the American public will force any government to enforce security measures that transform our way of life. We must have a bipartisan policy. The president would do well to work with leaders of Congress to agree jointly on an independent body to monitor the procedures. We have distinguished retired leaders who could do this. To allow essential security to become just a point of contention will only damage the country and the American people.
advertisement