This week the Tribune invited readers to declare whether President Bush’s eavesdropping authorization is an unacceptable violation of rights, or a necessary component of the war against terror. Readers e-mailed their opinions. Here are some of their comments:
I believe the president, in a state of emergency, should exercise any and all forms of surveillance available in securing our nation. We are at war with an invisible attacker, and the president’s power should allow this type and all available forms of surveillance at any cost, to protect us against another plot to kill Americans on our soil.
His job is to serve and protect his nation with all available means. I support the president’s decision.
–Michael Curcio
Hoffman Estates
This president has not asked the American people to make any material sacrifices in the war on terror, yet he felt justified in sacrificing our civil liberties for us. He claims it is an important tool to fighting terror–more important, apparently, than the majority of recommendations set out by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which he has failed to act on.
I believe in a relentless war on terror. But the point of this war is not merely to keep us safe. It is to keep us free. President Bush dishonors us all by secretly choosing otherwise on our behalf.
–Mike Cooper
Hoffman Estates
I believe we need to take all measures to ensure we are as safe as can be on our own land. The feds can eavesdrop all they want on my conversations, as I am sure they will find most of them very boring. I have nothing to hide, and if the Patriot Act (or any others for that matter) helps uncover those who have something to hide, I vote yes!
–Marc A. DeLille
High Point, N.C.
Why go through the rigors of the Patriot Act? Was this a diversion? I find it particularly arrogant. We certainly need to keep watch on our enemies, but why lie to us? Steps have been taken in years past to be able to do this with oversight. And swearing congressmen to silence is not oversight.
–Pete Bohlin
Aurora
I’m all for it. If you don’t have anything to hide, why should you be worried? It makes this country a safer place, and that is all that matters.
–Brian Farrell
Chicago
The decision by President Bush and his administration to authorize a domestic spying program is not surprising. This latest controversy regarding a secret program that involves spying on American citizens without going through the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act clearly illustrates how he thinks he is above the law.
How arrogant.
How dangerous.
–John Osbolt
Elmhurst
President Bush’s surveillance program violates the law and the basic principles of our country. The law provided him with a way to do necessary surveillance and he simply ignored it. If we accept his argument that the program is an inherent part of his powers as commander in chief, then he can do virtually anything without consulting any other branch of government. Some of his supporters may believe that he would not go too far, because they trust him, but this violates the basic principle that we are a country of laws and not of men. Would those supporters have trusted Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon with such powers?
–Don Lofty
Corporate counsel
S.C. Johnson & Son Inc.
Racine, Wis.
President Bush’s authorization to spy on American citizens who are members of groups that are involved in activism is wrong on so many levels. It contravenes the message that we send to our citizenry and to the world, which is that we in the U.S. are better off than citizens of other nations, because we can speak freely without fear of reprisal. Clearly if we are being spied on without our knowledge, we must fear reprisal.
It counters our nation’s assertion that the human rights violations of other countries are egregious and must be punished.
This is a frightening time to be a citizen of the U.S., and I can only hope that the American people have enough sense to vote in a more moderate president and Congress in the coming years.
–Linda Mastandrea
Chicago
We are at war with an enemy that has struck Americans and American interests both abroad and on our own soil. The U.S. has communications intelligence and security operations around the world monitoring both friendly and potential enemy emissions. We have procedures for monitoring suspected criminal activities at home to bring organized crime to justice. To do less against this enemy that threatens us at home would be dereliction of duty. It is necessary for national security.
–Dave Baloun
Aurora, Colo.
The issue is not limited to whether this policy is an abridgment of privacy rights. More important is whether the Bush administration will continue to be allowed to violate the law, in secret, with no checks on its abuse of power. We know about this only because some unknown patriots leaked the information. There’s no telling (literally) what else this secretive administration has done in violation of our Constitution and laws.
–Cliff Tarrance
Chicago
A government that has to spy on its own people only seeks more power to control all the people. Our freedom seems to be only a matter of concern to those who understand it is being taken away, little by little, by this administration.
–William Pappas
Chicago
The president intentionally broke a federal law. His actions must be investigated and the White House should cooperate fully with this investigation. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was put in place to provide oversight of the executive’s intelligence activities. It was inspired by Richard Nixon’s spying on domestic opposition groups within the United States. President Bush’s assertion that he is above the law is repugnant to our democracy.
As a patriotic American, I refuse to tolerate a dictatorship, despite assurances that it is a benevolent one. Furthermore, Bush’s claim that this law-breaking was necessary to fight the war on terror does not hold water. FISA is very flexible. Why did the president feel the need to circumvent this explicit check on his authority? Presidents have been impeached for less.
–Melanie Miles
Chicago
President Bush misled us about the reasons for going to war with Iraq, someone in his administration seems to have leaked the identity of a CIA operative, members of his administration have wanted to protect the use of torture and now he expects U.S. citizens to trust him when he says he’ll only spy on the “bad guys.” Doesn’t he know his credibility is shot?
–Laura Knapp
Warrenville
Is breaking the law acceptable for someone sworn to uphold it? This silly question answers itself and reminds me of the Vietnam War quote, “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
–Richard Friedman
Wilmette
We went from leaders of the free world to no better than Fidel Castro’s dictatorship. I understand the need for security, but what gives anyone the right to ignore our Constitution? The president has already become a dictator, going against the Constitution and doing what he wants when he wants it–now spying on Americans without just cause. We’re a pretend democracy.
–Essam Maan
Chicago
———-
Editor’s note: To read additional responses online, visit: bancodeprofissionais.com/spyingletters
