Three days ago we made available to the
public news that one of our members, Russell Tice, a former NSA Senior Analyst,
had been served with a subpoena asking him to appear before a federal grand
jury regarding the criminal investigation of recent disclosures which involved
NSA warrantless eavesdropping. Our announcement was followed up in both the main
and alternative media, and started heated discussions among online activists.
We have received e-mails and letters from people who expressed their support
and solidarity with Mr. Tice and other patriotic public servants who have
chosen to place our nation, its Constitution, its liberty, thus its public�s
right to know, above their future security, careers and livelihood.
We have also received e-mails from individuals who argued against the
public�s right to know when it comes to issues such as NSA warrantless
eavesdropping or mass collection of citizens� financial and other personal data
by various intelligence and defense related agencies. They unite in their
argument that any measure to protect us from the terrorists is welcomed and
justified. One individual wrote: �so what
if they are listening to our conversations. I have nothing to hide, so I don�t
mind the government eavesdropping on my phone conversations. Only those engaged
in evil deeds would worry about the government placing them under surveillance.�
But how far can one let the government go based on this rationale? This issue
is well articulated in Federalist, No. 51, �You must first enable the
government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control
itself.� How do we oblige our government to control itself?
You may ask how NSA eavesdropping affects you when you have nothing to
hide. Let us try to explain why you should worry. Even if, as the government
claims, this program is only looking for �terrorist activity,� still all your conversations have to be
processed; have to be linked to other calls and sources of �possible� terrorist
activity. All it takes is an innocent phone call to a friend, who has placed a
call to a friend or relative, who has legitimate business or personal contacts
in a foreign country where there may be �suspected terrorists.� You have just
become a potential target of government investigation -- you may be a terrorist
supporter, or even a terrorist. Remember �Six Degrees of Separation� (the theory that
anyone on earth can be connected to any other person on the planet through a
chain of acquaintances with no more than five intermediaries)? The NSA program
can easily mistakenly connect you to a terrorist. Furthermore, since
the program is being conducted without judicial oversight and under no
recognized process there is nothing to restrict how the information obtained
under the program is being used.
But let us take things from the widely shared point of view of the
individual quoted above; the view that there is nothing for honest people to
fear from warrantless, presidentially-ordered surveillance. What other
invasions of rights would such acquiescence to government authority inevitably
lead to?
Our government will argue its right to break into your house and search
it without warrant based on some tip, intelligence, or information that is
considered classified, which you have no right or clearance to know about. It
will argue that the search and the secrecy are necessary for reasons of
�national security� and within the �inherent powers� of the executive branch,
therefore not requiring congressional authorization or judicial oversight.
What is next in the name of national security? Will our government call
out to all citizens in particular communities to turn in their weapons to law
enforcement agencies? Perhaps it will cite the following reason for such call:
�We already know that several Al Qaeda cells reside in the affected
communities. Our intelligence agencies have received credible information
concerning these cells� intention to break into Americans� homes to obtain
firearms, since they do not want to risk detection by purchasing firearms from
the market.� Would our compliant citizen quoted above be more than happy to
give up his right under the Second Amendment for possible security promised to
him by his government? When the agents show up at his door asking for his
legally registered Colt, what will he do?
There are those well-meaning �conservative� Americans who
have been led to believe that our nation�s security is somehow damaged when an
employee of one of our �security� agencies comes forward to shed light on
activities by our government that may be illegal, may be un-constitutional, and
may be a danger to the nation�s security. These Americans have accepted too
easily the government�s propaganda sold to them shrewdly packaged in a wrapping
of fear of terror -- that if you expose any government action, however
misguided or un-constitutional, then you are jeopardizing our security; you are
aiding the terrorists. This quote from Benjamin Franklin sums it up well: �They
that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety.�
What price our imagined security? If we now would allow the
NSA to listen in to our most private conversations without objection, then when
next the knock comes on our door, or our door is knocked down, in the interest
of �national security� what will we say? Will we say, �Come on in and search
me, my house and my family; after all, it is in the interest of �national
security� and we have nothing to hide�? Generations of Americans have fought
and died so that we can today enjoy the precious fruits of their struggles --
the right to our privacy, the right to our freedom from government intrusion,
the right to our freedom of speech, the right to �life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness,� the right to simply be left alone. Are we to become the
generation that loses those freedoms, not only for ourselves, but for the generations
that follow? And will it be us who lets it happen because of some misplaced
belief that government �oppression� equals �national security�?
Since when did true conservatives agree to surrender their
individual rights under the Constitution for the sake of some imagined
temporary security? Since when have we become so afraid of some foreign
terrorists that we shiver and hide under a blanket of imagined security offered
up by those in power who feed on our fears? Since when have we forgotten the messages
of the Founding Fathers, who understood so clearly that the greatest danger to
our liberties is an oppressive government, not outside foreign forces? We
should never fear those who are brave enough to speak out, but we should fear
greatly those who would silence them.
We like to believe our nation is one that prizes individual liberty and
freedom from authoritarian restraint, the dictates of hierarchy, or
governmental limits. Throughout its history our nation�s soul has been based on
anti-authoritarianism and fear of a large, tyrannical government. Our notion of
liberty has been built upon a philosophy of limited government with the highest
value placed on preservation of individual rights. Our nation�s political
thought found its roots in the writings of John Locke, who stressed an
insistence on imposing limits on authority, on governmental authority, in order
to further individual rights and liberty. No wonder both liberal and republican
traditions, although each in its own way and style, pride themselves in their
eternal quest for �limited government.�
Our entire system of government and its institutions is grounded in an
insistence that tyranny be combated and that individual liberty be protected
from a potentially tyrannical government. The result is a suspicion of
authority and an emphasis on limited government. Samuel Huntington, a
well-known conservative Republican, states in American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony: �The distinctive
aspect of the American Creed is its antigovernment character. Opposition to
power, and suspicion of government as the most dangerous embodiment of power,
are the central themes of American political thought.�
After 9/11 our president came out and warned us: �the terrorists are resolved to change the way of our lives. They hate
our freedom and our way of life here.� Well, Mr. President, we have come a
long way since that awful day. Our way of privacy in communicating on the phone
and through our computers, our way of detaining and prosecuting people, our way
of trusting our records with our librarians, our way of reading and discussing
dissent, our way of treating our ally nations, our way of making it from the
airport gates to the airplanes . . . simply, our way of life, has surely changed drastically in five years. But,
Mr. President, we don�t have the terrorists to blame for this. We only have you
and our three branches of government to blame.
� Copyright 2006, National Security Whistleblowers
Coalition. Information in this release may be freely distributed and
published provided that all such distributions make appropriate attribution to
the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
Sibel Edmonds is the founder and
director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). Ms. Edmonds worked as a language
specialist for the FBI. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and
reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking
of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported
these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the FBI and
ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her case
have been blocked by the assertion of �State Secret Privilege�; the Congress of
the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case
through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice. Ms. Edmonds
is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; and has a MA in Public Policy and
International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in Criminal
Justice and Psychology from George Washington University. PEN American Center
awarded Ms. Edmonds the 2006 PEN/Newman's Own First Amendment Award.
Professor
William Weaver is the senior advisor and a board member of National
Security Whistleblowers Coalition. Mr. Weaver served in U.S. Army signals
intelligence for eight years in Berlin and Augsburg, Germany, in the late 1970s
and 1980s. He subsequently received his law degree and Ph.D. in politics from
the University of Virginia, where he was on the editorial board of the Virginia
Law Review. He is presently an Associate Professor of political science and an
Associate in the Center for Law and Border Studies at the University of Texas
at El Paso. He specializes in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental
abuse, and law and bureaucracy. His articles have appeared in American Political
Science Review, Political Science Quarterly, Virginia Law Review, Journal of
Business Ethics, Organization and other journals. With co-author Robert
Pallitto, his book Presidential Secrecy and the Law is forthcoming from Johns
Hopkins University Press in the spring of 2007. His views and positions arising
from his affiliation with the NSWBC do not reflect the sentiments of, or
constitute and endorsement by, the University of Texas at El Paso.