The NSA and domestic spying: the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance has become a concern for both sides of the political spectrum, but it's still being defended.

The Central Security Agency, the not-so-fictional entity where soccer morn Cathy Davis (played by actress Lea Thompson) works part-time in the Hallmark TV mystery movie Jane Doe, seems to be totally dedicated to catching the "bad guys." If any viewer were inclined to believe that the spy agency depicted in the series poses any threat to his peace of mind, the cute, perky character played by Thompson would quickly dispel such fears. However, the real-life National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) plays in an entirely different arena than its fictional counterpart. The NSA's recent surveillance activities have raised serious concerns among Americans across the political spectrum.

One of the most publicized exposures of the NSA's intrusions into the lives of U.S. citizens was made by USA Today on May 10, when the national daily revealed that the NSA is storing the telephone-call logs of up to 200 million Americans. The Bush administration tried to sidestep the controversy by claiming to be spying only on members of al-Qaeda, but has never denied the accuracy of USA Today's report.

Liberty or Security?

When the NSA was created in 1952, its stated purpose was to coordinate cryptologic (code breaking) operations among our nation's armed forces and civilian intelligence segments. In the context of the Cold War and verifiable penetration of our government by communist espionage agents, the existence of such an agency made sense.

In our "war against terror," the Bush administration has also been telling us that it needs to "coordinate" and improve our intelligence apparatus. However, in the years since the 9/11 attacks, many Americans have become uncomfortable with the Bush administration's expansion of executive power in the name of waging war. This expansion has included the detention of suspected terrorists without charges being filed, the many federal powers expanded under the Patriot Act, reports of secret CIA prisons overseas, and warrantless eavesdropping by the NSA.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the NSA's leadership reevaluated its mission and strategies. In a statement made before a House committee on October 17, 2002, General Michael V. Hayden (now Director of the CIA), who was then the director of the NSA, stated:

   When I spoke with our workforce
   shortly after the September 11th attacks,
   I told them that free people always
   had to decide where to draw the
   line between their liberty and their
   security, and I noted that the attacks
   would almost certainly push us as a
   nation more toward security. I then
   gave the NSA workforce a challenge:
   We were going to keep America free
   by making Americans feel safe again.
   [Emphasis added.]

But the NSA has now drawn a line between security and liberty that has angered Americans of all stripes because it seems to have forgotten liberty.

Crossing the Ideological Divide

Reports about the NSA engaging in surveillance of telephone calls and in data mining (collecting information from civilian databases) have prompted vehement objections, and even legal action, from Americans across the political spectrum. For example: In his Texas Straight Talk column for December 26, 2005, "Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act," Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, objected to such NSA activity: "Recent revelations that the National Security Agency has conducted broad surveillance of American citizens' emails and phone calls raise serious questions about the proper role of government in a free society."

The congressman asked: "Why does the Constitution have an enumerated powers clause, if the government can do things wildly beyond those powers--such as establish a domestic spying program? Why have a 4th Amendment, if it does not prohibit government from eavesdropping on phone calls without telling anyone?"

The ACLU, a liberal organization far removed from Rep. Paul on the political spectrum, also agreed that the NSA had gone too far. The group recently filed a lawsuit against the NSA in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit. In its suit, the ACLU contended that the NSA surveillance program violates First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and assembly by intruding into the private conversations and e-mail exchanges of individuals and groups.

The New York Times for June 16, in an article headlined "New Jersey Demands Data on Phone Call Surveillance and Is Sued by U.S.," reported about a case that dealt not only with the issue of privacy, but also with a significant attack on states' rights. Zulima V. Farber, attorney general of New Jersey, issued subpoenas to five telephone companies to determine whether any of them violated the state's consumer protection laws by providing records to the NSA. In response to the attorney general's action, however, the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit in United States District Court to block the subpoenas, setting up a classic battle between the federal government and a state. The Times noted:

   As a matter of national security
   policy, the dispute represents the
   latest twist in the controversy over
   the boundaries of domestic spying
   and personal privacy. But as a matter
   of government practice and legal
   precedent, the dispute is significant
   because it transforms what had primarily
   been a fight between the federal
   government and civil liberties
   groups into a far knottier one pitting
   federal authorities against state ones.
   [Emphasis added.]

Hold the Phone on Data Mining

In addition to government monitoring of private phone calls, data mining has become another bone of contention for those alarmed by Big-Brother government. A June 15 article in the Washington Post revealed that U.S. government entities, including the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, are buying data from commercial databases, which are generally compiled for marketing purposes. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study, 52 government agencies had launched, or were in the process of launching, at least 199 data-mining projects extending as far back as 2004. An April GAO report found that of $30 million spent by four government agencies last year on services from so-called "data-crunching" companies, 91 percent was for law enforcement or counterterrorism.

The NSA controversy obviously prompted a line of questioning about the agency during an appearance by Vice President Cheney at a National Press Club luncheon on June 19. In his responses, Cheney acknowledged the agency's intrusions. But he also defended them, claiming that the NSA program, along with "very aggressive campaigns overseas" has helped to protect the country against new terror attacks.

Perhaps even more significant was Cheney's defense of the consolidation of power in the Executive branch. He lamented the fact that during the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandals, Congress reclaimed some of its authority. But, applauding the Bush administration's increased power grab, Cheney said that he and Mr. Bush considered it important to "have the balance righted, if you will. And I think we've done that successfully."

We should remember that, while effective national security is essential, our government must never deviate from the Constitution in carrying out its responsibilities to protect the lives and property of our citizens.