SmallGovTimes.com

By: Lance Thompson | Published on 09/12/07    

Most Democrats were busy over the weekend pre-dismissing General Petraeus as a partisan spokesman for the Bush administration, fearing the encouraging report he would bring from Iraq. Perhaps realizing that their ability to conceal progress in Iraq from the American people is eroding, other Democrats are preparing to furnish the enemy a formidable weapon in the war against us.

Prior to Congress’ summer vacation, the Democrats bowed to public opinion and approved a temporary expansion of National Security Agency domestic surveillance laws. One recent benefit of that program was its contribution to the exposure of the Islamic terrorist plot in Germany to attack Frankfurt Airport and American military installations in Europe.

The Bush administration wants to make permanent that temporary expansion, whichis due to expire in February. An essential component of this initiative is a grant of retroactive immunity from lawsuits brought against private telecom companies for cooperating with NSA investigations. The Democrats, rather than oppose an obviously vital measure to protect Americans, have decided to emasculate the program by opposing the immunity.

Telecom companies have previously cooperated with NSA requests for access to data in order to facilitate anti-terrorist investigations. But after the traitorous exposure of the classified program by the New York Times in 2005, the ACLU and other anti-American organizations launched a barrage of lawsuits to punish any company that joined the fight against our terrorist enemies. These pending lawsuits represent billions of dollars of potential liability.

Without immunity, our terrorist enemies have full access to our court system to shield themselves from surveillance. Telecom companies will understandably refuse to participate in any venture that could financially destroy them. Having cooperated in good faith with the NSA to support anti-terrorist investigations, telecom companies now find themselves at risk for doing exactly what their government asked of them.

Democrats who oppose immunity claim the mantle of protectors of our privacy rights. The non-existent Constitutional right to privacy is at the heart of most hard-left positions, from abortion to terrorism. But doing something in private doesn’t make it legal, moral or permissible. Most crimes are conceived, planned, and, if possible, committed in private. They are still crimes, and are still punishable, even if they are accomplished beyond public view. The NSA program is designed to uncover, expose and prevent terrorist depredations which are plotted in secret. To accomplish this, the privacy of the terrorists must be violated.

Privacy is a desirable aspect of our freedom, but it is far from our most cherished. If the victims of terrorist attacks could be asked to choose between their privacy and their lives, the answer would be obvious. In this issue, we are all asked to make the same choice. Do we treasure our privacy more than our personal safety, or that of our family and friends? Would we feel more secure if we preserved our privacy at the cost of a preventable attack on fellow Americans?

No one has been prosecuted for non-terrorist crimes exposed by the NSA warrantless surveillance. The data consists only of the phone numbers, times and dates of calls–not the substance of those calls. The intrusion on the privacy of Americans is infinitesimally shallow, but the benefits to anti-terrorist efforts are invaluable. Restricting investigation of terrorists is an immensely powerful weapon which the enemy cannot obtain, except with the help of allies in Congress.

If privacy is not the issue for Democrats who oppose telecom immunity, what is? The most generous interpretation is that it’s a gift to one of their major sources of support, the trial lawyers. A multi-billion dollar litigation target will keep unscrupulous lawyers gainfully engaged for a decade, fighting over who gets the biggest bite of the telecom feast.

But if this isn’t a sop to the lawyers, then Democrats must accept their position as the domestic allies of foreign enemies. Opposing telecom immunity is a clear service to the terrorists. It protects their privacy, enables them to plan and conspire against us, and ties the hands of the very agencies we depend on to defend us. It is evident that the goals of Democrats in Congress to defeat immunity are exactly those of al Qaeda and its franchisees. How long will Americans continue to support politicians who work tirelessly to enact the enemy’s agenda?

Original URL:
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07sep12.weapons.enemy/index.html