Unlimited Surveillance is carrying surveillance too far and not working

If Washington was really interested in reforming NSA why would they appoint Senator Dianne Feinstein to oversee primary oversight of NSA? She has long been a supporter of the U.S. national security industry. This is one area where she often voted against her fellow Democrat Representatives and Senators. Does she not have a conflict of interest when much of her husband’s income is derived from military contracts?  Senator Feinstein in my opinion is like putting the fox in charge of hen house.

Dianne Feinstein has argued in USA Today that metadata collection of all Americans’ telephone records is not surveillance at all because the actual conversations are not recorded. I think when the U.S. government knows when you called, who you called, who called you, length of each call and frequency of calls that is surveillance and an invasion of privacy.  When they can do the same with your emails that is surveillance and invasion of privacy. It gives the government a clear picture of your associations, activities and a general picture of your daily routine when pieced together. Why should the government have the right to know if you are using a dating service, contacting a gay or lesbian organization, seeking help from an addiction clinic or HIV clinic, etc.?

An August 2010 document that Snowden released to the public revealed that the U.S. spied on members of the United Nation so they would have a heads-up on how they intended to vote on upcoming votes. Edward Snowden’s revelations for the first time allowed people to know the true extent of the surveillance capabilities of the U.S. Government and the dangers it posed to a democratic governance. Privacy is at the very core of our being free people.

NSA does not have to listen to every call we make or read every email we send just the thought that they can is enough to cause people to fear and fall in line. That is really the intent of state surveillance. The threat of government surveillance psychologically inhibits our freedom of speech. If the surveillance worked you may could concede we need it, but it does not work we have seen that over and over just recently in Orlando, Florida.

We all have secrets. We all have personal information that we do not want to share with the public and that does not mean the information is wrong or illegal. I did not as a child want people to know my father was an alcoholic. It took many years in ministry before I would share that I had a sister who had been married five times and divorced. That is not something Catholics, especially Catholic priest want to make public. Washington is quite aware that the mere existence of government surveillance stifles the ability for one to dissent that is why it is so important to them.

NSA databases store information about your political views, your medical history, your relationships and they tell us we have nothing to worry about. I do not trust human nature enough not to be concerned. I certainly do not trust the hypocrites in Washington that have no real convictions except a thirst for more power.  The IRS has conveniently leak private information in the past, especially when an administration is trying to defeat a particular candidate and so will the NSA.

The true measure of a society’s freedom is how it treats dissident and marginalized groups not how it treats good loyalist. Even the worst tyrants protect their loyalist from abuse. In a democracy we should not have to be loyalist to the present administration to feel safe. Some of the richest people in the Philippines today were loyalist of Marcos and had their futures protected regardless if Marcos remained in power or not.

In 2013 the Pew Research Center revealed 70%  of U.S. citizens surveyed thought the U.S. government uses information gathered from surveillance for things other than terrorism. It was even more revealing that the majority now feel Americans should be more concerned about government surveillance than terrorism. Forty-seven percent said they knew the government had taken surveillance too far and abused it.

The indifference or support for unlimited surveillance by government is generally held by those who think themselves exempt from abusive government power. That kind of complacency by the people always leads to abuse. The Japanese Americans never thought that they would be hauled off and put in camps, but during World War II they were. Most of us never thought government surveillance would be used against anyone in the U.S. except Muslims, but it is.

The communication of the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras or spying on negotiation sessions at an economic summit or targeting the democratically elected leaders of allied nations or collecting all Americans communications records has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is a pretext to allow unlimited surveillance of our citizens. Did it stop the 2012 Boston Marathon bombing, did it stop the San Bernardino slayings, did it stop the attempted bombing of an airline over Detroit, did it stop the plans to blow up Times Square or the plans to attack the New York Subway?  Did it stop the major international attacks from London to Mumbai to Madrid?

CBS News host Bob Schieffer denounce Snowden as a “narcissistic young man who thinks he is smarter than the rest of us.”  Politico’s Roger Simon called Snowden a loser because he dropped out of high school. Democratic congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called Snowden a coward. Congressman Mike Rogers  switched from calling him a spy for China to a spy for Russia without any proof whatsoever. The truth is Edward Snowden was going to Latin America via Russia and when the plane arrived in Russia he was forced to stay there because the U.S. government had cancel his passport. He is not in Russia by choice.  

I NOW believe Edward Snowden has done more for America and freedom than Schieffer, Simon, Schultz, Rogers and all the other Snowden detractors put together. Pardon Edward Snowden and let him come home if he still wants to come home - I do not know if I would or not!