by Jonathan David Morris
Last week wasnt a good week for privacy.
On Wednesday, an NBC report revealed that the Pentagon has been actively spying on suspicious anti-war groupsamong them, apparently, a group of Floridian Quakers (also known as the more sinister-sounding Society of Friends"). Two days later, the New York Times unleashed a report of its own, which revealed that the National Security Agency has been monitoring the international emails and phone calls of hundreds, even thousands of Americans at any given timethe result of a secret order signed off by President Bush in 2002. Finally, in the midst of all this, the House of Representatives crawled out of its hole, got scared of its shadow, and crawled back in for several more years of unconstitutional searches and seizures (which is my long, drawn-out way of saying the House voted to renew the Patriot Act; the Senate, however, has yet to do so). Basically, if you ever sat around thinking, You know what I could use right now? One solid week of government encroachments, last week was the week youve been waiting for.
Still, as I write this, I wonder how much this domestic spying stuff should bug me. I mean, it obviously does bug me. You can probably tell by the tone of my voice here. Im just saying I wonder sometimes the extent to which it should.
On paper, the measures I mentioned above look dreadful. Some people are going to tell me Im going overboard by calling all this domestic spying domestic spying, because were in the middle of a War on Terror, and because sacrifices need to be made in times of war. I see their point. I understand it. Im not even saying I necessarily disagree with it. But at the same time, Im not about to take Washingtons assessment of the terrorist threat at face value. True, theyd know better than me how real that threat is. But I dont expect them to portray it realistically. Politicians tend to play things up for their own benefit. If you listened to Congress during the baseball hearings, youd think half the kids in this country were packing steroid needles in their lunchboxes. Obviously, thats not true. So while I understand there are people in this world who want to kill us, and while I understand its the governments job to stop those people from killing our people, that shouldnt mean Washington gets to watch me like Jim Carrey in The Truman Show (or Matthew McConaughey in the lesser Ed TV). Civil liberties still mean something in this country. Or at least theyre supposed to. Even if you think domestic spying is an essential tool in the War on Terror, its still domestic spying. Im not going to argue with anyone who refuses to call it exactly what it is.
That said, Im trying to be realistic about this. Im not comfortable with the idea of domestic spying, but I dont want to wear my discomfort like those special sunglasses that let Rowdy Roddy Piper see the aliens in They Live. All that would accomplish is causing me to live in constant fear. I dont think the government is watching me take a shower in the morning. I dont think theyre watching me while I sleep. Theres no reason why anyone would want to watch this stuff. It would be sheer paranoia to think Im under surveillance in the most personal, intimate sense. (Yet.) The truth is that, yes, on paper, domestic spying bugs me. So do all the enhanced security measures weve seen the last few years. But thats on paper. In reality, I dont really feel less free.
But by the same token, last week we learned that the president gave the NSA secret permission to monitor international emails and phone calls without warrants. This makes me wonder what secrets well learn next week. Maybe itll turn out the feds are reading all emails. And not just the emails of suspected terrorists, but simply all Americans. Maybe itll turn out theyre listening to all of our phone calls, too. This kind of surveillance isnt exactly farfetched in this day and age. Whether its happening, I dont know. And whether it matters, thats another issue. But the point is, it isnt farfetched. Not when a government of, for, and by the people is decidingin secret, no lesshow much privacy its people deserve.
So the question is, at what point should this start to bug us? At what point should we feel less free? Im not the kind of guy who likes it when someone reads over my shoulder. At what point does that go from a personal preference to a matter of principle? At what point are we supposed to say enough is enoughtake a hike? Most of us would probably agree there are terrorists living and working amongst us. And most of us would probably prefer the authorities do something to stop those terrorists from blowing up buildings or killing anybody. But where do we draw the line when it comes to intruding upon civil liberties? When do the authorities become a greater threat to our freedoms than the terrorists theyre supposed to stop?
I dont really know the answer to that question. I know I was setting it up to sound like I knew the answer, but I dont. And to be quite honest, Im not sure anybody does. Different people have different standards for what theyre willing to put up with. Most of us probably dont know what our own standards are. I certainly dont know mine. Even if I did, I doubt Id be at the point of wanting to deal with them. Id rather criticize the state of things from the comfort of my chair than get up and do something. Im a cynic; thats what cynics do. As Thomas Jefferson put it, mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. I dont like what I see when Washington spies on people. I dont like how the Patriot Act dumps a giant bucket of bodily fluids all over Fourth Amendment search and seizure protections. But I certainly dont feel like Im suffering at the moment. I may be annoyed, but Im not really suffering. At least not that I know of. (Yet.)
When I look at my life, I see that most of the things thatve happened since 9/11 havent really affected me. I havent been victimized by terror. I havent lost anyone to terror. I dont know any soldiers. And the biggest intrusions of privacy have come at the airport, where theyve busted the locks off my luggage and stopped an inch short of shoving a metal detector up my butt. All things considered, Ive had it pretty good. If I didnt watch the news, I probably wouldnt know the War on Terror was happening to begin with.
But for me, the biggest intrusions arent physical. Theyre mental. Theyre the words that Im not supposed to write. Whenever I bash the Patriot Act in one of my columns, I get letters from people saying I have nothing to fear if I have nothing to hide. To me, this is like the people of Salem telling 17th Century women: Dont worry. If you arent a witch, youll drown in this water. The fact is, I dont know if Im hiding something at this point. I dont know if I should be living in fear. Maybe bashing the Patriot Act will come back and haunt me someday. Maybe itll keep me from getting on a plane. I dont know. The rules keep changing, and we dont find out until afterwards.
Id like to believe Im just some drunken halfwit with a typewriter living in Philly. But Ben Franklin was just some drunken halfwit with a typewriter living in Philly, too, and Ill be damned if the Brits didnt think he was a terrorist threat. (I realize Ben Franklin may not have owned a typewriter. The analogy works, though. I dont own one, either.) The point is, realistically, my little weekly column here shouldnt be enough to get me in trouble with the feds someday. But realistically, being an anti-war Quaker shouldnt be enough to get you on a Pentagon watch listyet, apparently, now it is. This is the climate that domestic spying creates. Its ill effects run deeper than invasions of privacy, because after a while it starts to invade your thoughts. It makes you question if its safe to have your opinions. Or more importantly, it makes you question whether its safe to share them. In a country that values free speech, this isnt good.
Im a reasonable guy. I can see supporting something like the Patriot Act if you think it makes us safer. I dont consider that an unreasonable position. But what I do consider unreasonable is the assumption that always seem to come along with itthis idea that anyone who opposes such measures has something to hide or has it out for America. When you make that assumption, you create a test that someone with a different opinion cant possibly pass. Whats more, you do it with law enforcement and the worlds largest army on your side. This is pretty un-American, if you ask me.
If I had to decide where enough is enough, this is probably where Id start.
Jonathan David Morris is a political writer -- and sometimes satirist -- based in Pennsylvania. A strong believer in small government, JDM often takes aim at oppressive taxes, entitlements, and laws, writing about incompetence at the highest levels of culture and government. Catch his weekly ramblings at readjdm.com.