The New York Times reports “After Paris Attacks, C.I.A. Director Rekindles Debate Over Surveillance.”
It’s a rather understated headline.
A diabolical range of recent attacks claimed by the Islamic State — a Russian airliner blown up in Egypt, a double suicide bombing in Beirut and Friday’s ghastly assaults on Paris — has rekindled a debate over the proper limits of government surveillance in an age of terrorist mayhem.
On Monday, in unusually raw language, John Brennan, the C.I.A. director, denounced what he called “hand-wringing” over intrusive government spying and said leaks about intelligence programs had made it harder to identify the “murderous sociopaths” of the Islamic State.
Mr. Brennan appeared to be speaking mainly of the disclosures since 2013 of the National Security Agency’s mass surveillance of phone and Internet communications by Edward J. Snowden, which prompted sharp criticism, lawsuits and new restrictions on electronic spying in the United States and in Europe.
In the wake of the 129 deaths in Paris, Mr. Brennan and some other officials sounded eager to reopen a clamorous argument over surveillance in which critics of the spy agencies had seemed to hold an advantage in recent years.
Eager to reopen arguments or eager to spy on us? Or perhaps they want to admit that they are already spying on us and don’t want to worry about another whistleblower like Edward Snowden. Ultimately, they want us to thank them for violating our Fourth Amendment rights.
But the government is the reason we are in this situation. It was European policies that encouraged Muslim immigration without assimilation. And in the U.S. we are expected to house thousands of inadequately vetted Syrian refugees. Are we supposed to give up our Fourth Amendment in order to keep us safe from the terrorist among them?
In the United States, surveillance is the core issue for the security agencies combating the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and for the watchdog groups that monitor those agencies. In addition to the basic question of how much government snooping should be allowed, there is the particular concern among Muslims that they are being unfairly targeted.
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, who serves on the House Intelligence and Homeland Security Committees, said on “Fox News Sunday” that “we have to put political correctness aside.”
“We have to have surveillance in the Muslim communities,” he said. “That’s where the threat is coming from.”
But if allowing immigrants is going to mean ending Constitutional protections then why allow immigrants?
We’ve noted before that the war on terror has made the world a more dangerous place. ISIS is the best enemy money can buy.
So basically the government spends our money to bring about a situation where they can justify spending even more money as well as shredding our Constitutional rights. This is how they “protect us.”