"The Sound of Silence", "For What It's Worth"

[Tom Rinaldo]

If a Right falls in a Democracy, and no one is around to hear it..."

Does it make a sound? Most of us remember "For what it's worth":

"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down"
Buffalo Springfield - 1966

But what if there isn't a sound? What if our Rights silently vanish? What if nobody's looking? Most Americans feel familiar with our system of justice. Certainly our media covers scores of crimes and subsequent trials. We know the basics; Innocent until proven guilty, a prosecutor, a defender, witnesses, judges, the right to face one’s accuser, and to testify on one’s own behalf. Surveillance though is different. At the most the object of surveillance is a suspect of a crime, at the least it is thought that person could innocently possess some data of value to the government in solving or preventing a crime. In either case that person is subject to the loss of their privacy, and the potential for abuse of information thereby gathered about them. Invasion of privacy and abuse of personal information are often considered crimes in their own right, and those who suffer one and or both are frequently viewed as victims under our society’s laws.

But of far greater importance, our nation’s founders were so concerned about the potential of government abuse of surveillance that they incorporated safeguards against it into our Bill of Rights, the very foundation of our personal Liberties guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America. There aren’t 283 Constitutional amendments in the Bill of Rights, there are only 10. It takes a pretty big concern to make the Top Ten, and here is number Four:

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

It isn’t that complicated on the face of it, nothing that should confuse anyone who believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, as opposed to proponents of a “Living Constitution” - one that changes its literal meaning to keep pace with changing current events. Telephones and email didn’t exist in 1791 of course, but the intent of the drafters here is none the less unmistakable, and isn’t that after all what the “originalist” Justices, like Scalia and Thomas who George W. Bush always cites as models, are constantly referring us to? But stepping away from the Bill of Rights for a moment, which one could argue I suppose was only an afterthought, there is the matter of the core framework of our Republic, as envisioned by our founders and ensconced in the Constitution, that small detail of architecture affectionately known as “Checks and Balances”.

If there is any single political philosophy expressed by our Founders in the Constitution it is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and therefore three separate but equal branches of government were established; the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary. There is no more fundamental aspect of American Government than the separation of governmental powers into these distinct inviolate entities, each jealously guarding the rights granted it under the Constitution, to prevent usurpation of them by a competing branch. That’s as strict as strict construction gets. That as intentional as original intent can be stated.

In America the Courts are our primary, though not exclusive, watchdog. When the Executive branch conducts surveillance on a citizen, the Courts are mandated to observe it. When our government taps a citizens phones, our Courts are supposed to hear about it. It is that simple. It is that fundamental.

But the Bush Administration hot wired the ignition switch for surveillance. The FISA Court holds the legal keys that unlock our freedoms safely in their legal hands, but the vehicle to subvert them already left the garage under cloak of darkness. And who even knew? Not the targets of surveillance obviously, the only parties with the legal standing to actually challenge the Administration in Court over this. Clearly not the FISA judges who all stood ready at the beck and call of the Executive to legally issue warrants, back dated if need be, to approve this domestic surveillance on U.S. citizens by an arm of our military. The President’s own legal team, they knew of course, people he hand picked, men and women who served at his pleasure. People like Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers, who if they served Bush well enough could someday hope to be appointed by Bush to the United States Supreme Court. They knew.

Yes, but also Congress, Congress was informed we are now told, or to be more accurate, 8 members of Congress were informed. Those eight members were briefed on whatever details regarding the warrantless spying on U.S. citizens that the Administration chose to share with them, and by all reports not all details were forthcoming. And if those Congressional members disagreed with any of it, what then? Well they were free to tell the Bush Administration that they disagreed, and the Bush Administration was free to ignore their disagreement. That’s it, end of story. Those eight individuals were bound and gagged by secrecy you see, shackled as tightly as Bobby Seals, sworn under oath not to reveal a word of this to anyone, with all knowledge gained destined to be buried six feet under upon their death.

Aren’t there laws against the intimidation of witnesses? Poor yet resolute Senator Rockefeller, refused the use of a personal secretary, denied the right to consult legal counsel, was left scribbling a hand written objection to Vice President Cheney, the only recourse left open to him. Then he like Robinson Crusoe, stranded alone on a solitary legal Island, stuffed a copy into a metaphoric bottle, in the distant hope that someday another human, out of the reach of the Executive Branch, would somehow be able to read it.

A right fell in our Democracy, and it didn’t make a sound, until the New York Times reported it (a year late and a few hundred billion dollars short). What if they hadn’t?

[madrchsod]

1. i really don`t want to think

if they hadn`t. well written- recommended

[tavalon]

10. I think about it a lot

I also think about how they influenced the last election. This does not exonerate them. I will not buy another of their papers.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. No it does not exonerate them. All praise to the whistle blowers n/t

[Jim__]

2. "A right fell in our Democracy, and it didn’t make a sound, ...

... until the New York Times reported it."

I disagree slightly with that statement. I go back to your first couple of sentences: "If a Right falls in a Democracy, and no one is around to hear it..." Does it make a sound?. Someone was around to hear it; and so it did make a sound. It wasn't the Times that heard, they actually helped to muffle the sound. The person who leaked the information is our alert listener. And it is to them that we owe our gratitude.

Our liberty depends on vigilant citizens. If no one came forward to report this falling of a right, it would not make a sound. That tells us all what our obligations are in this country. Be vigilant. Listen. And report what you hear. Otherwise, our liberty will be taken from us.

BTW, great post.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I don't think of the NYT as a hero of this tale

They are more like the anti-hero, reluctantly swept up in events, passively receiving information that they didn't really want to deal with, ultimately publishing when it seemed a reporter would break the news anyway in a book. That's what the "a year and a few hundred Billion dollars late" line was about. If the NYT published this when they got it I think Kerry would be President and we wouldn't be bogged down in Iraq the way we are now.

Our liberty does depend on vigilant citizens, but the point here is that it took more than simple vigilance. All the information was under full lock down, it was invisible to even the most vigilant citizen on the outside to see or hear of. All formal oversight had either been eliminated, ignored, or castrated by secrecy laws that made formal witnesses to this abuse mute. It took an insider or insiders stepping forward to leak this to the Times. If they hadn't broken ranks with the plan it would still be secret. Increasingly that is how this Administration structures it. They want no witnesses.

[Jim__]

4. You're right, it took an insider.

But that insider was a citizen (my best guess, anyway). And that may be the critical point. That insider is most likely a bushie; and this spying may have appeared as being in his short term political interests. But, no matter what the short term political advantage to any of us, the loss of a right is just a step on the road to the total loss of liberty. That's where I think we need to be especially vigilant, that we don't accept any loss of liberty, any loss of a right, even if it brings a short term advantage.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Yes. There are many Republicans who love their country and understand

just like Democrats, what it is about this country that is worthy of defending. That is the key element of being a whistle blower, a loyalty to something larger and more important than the organization that you are affiliated with. That sense of a larger purpose, of a common good that must be protected, is the value that underlies the vigilance needed.

[rman]

8. "Someone" was around to hear it....

"someone" may know - in fact several people may know. But until the MSM/corporate media reports it, the public does not know - so there's no public opinion on the matter, it is as though it didn't happen.



"If a Right falls in a Democracy, and no one is around to hear it, did it happen?"

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. CBS also witheld a story critical of Bush before the Election

They were working on a piece around the shoddy Niger/Iraq/Uranium connections but pulled it after that got ambushed and clobbered over Dan Rather's Bush National Guard Documents controversy. It got shelved.

When the media is not outright complicit, they are intimidated. I remember when the LA Times story about Ahrnold serially groping women came out a month before the Governor recall election in California. There was more coverage about the LA Times allegedly ambushing Schwarzenegger shortly before an election than there was about the actual allegations. It has nearly gotten to the point where Republicans have convinced the media that it is unfair to reveal allegations against them before an election, and it is unpatriotic to critize anything once the Administration says the magic workds, "National Security" (or the shorthand version, "terrorists").

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. CBS should pull the Niger story off of the shelf right now

The timing is finally right. My understanding is that it was completely finished and wrapped when it got bumped for the Rather TANG story. This would be a good way for CBS to restore some of the luster they lost.

[bvar22]

6. Raise Hell!!!

[MH1]

7. I'd reco twice if I could.

Excellent piece of writing.

It didn't occur to me that Sen. Rockefeller couldn't even have a secretary to write his note. We tend to overlook the details of how our people in Congress have to do their jobs. Thanks for reminding us of that detail.