Kathleen Parker : Perhaps wiretaps are common sense [View All]

[mwb970]

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/109514

Thus, try as I might, I can't muster outrage over what appears to be a reasonable action in the wake of 9/11. As a rule, I'm as averse as anyone to having people "spying" on me. I'm also as devoted to protecting civil liberties as any other American.

But the privilege of debating our constitutional rights requires first that we be alive. If federal agents want to listen in on suspected terrorists as they plot their next mass murder, please allow me to turn up the volume.

Meanwhile, unless I start placing calls to Peshawar using such phrases as "I want my 72 virgins now," then I figure I'm safe to make my next hair appointment without fear of exposure. OK, fine, so I highlight.

I'm not making light of legitimate concerns about government power over private lives — vigilance is critical and debate worthwhile, but this seems like a manufactured controversy. It also reminds us yet again that America's decency may be her greatest weakness.

-------------------------------
My e-mail to Kathleen Parker ([e-mail]):
-------------------------------

It was heartbreaking to read your column excusing the president's illegal and unconstitutional spying on Americans. Does the president pay you to write these columns? You speak of this as a "manufactured controversy". Sorry, no. A manufactured controversy is Fox's "War On Christmas". A manufactured controversy is Bill Clinton lying about an inconsequential, private sex act. Ms. Parker, this is a real controversy, in which the American president has refused to avail himself of legal avenues to wiretap American citizens with a court order. (Remember those speeches in 2004? He reassured his listeners that the government does not wiretap Americans without a court order, something he had already been doing for two years at the very time he offered this reassurance.)

I agree that it is important to monitor communications in America that may involve terrorist plotting. But this is not the issue. Why, Ms. Parker, did the president not do this legally? Why must he operate outside (and above) the law? This is not the way America is supposed to work, however much you may dream of unlimited, unchecked presidential power. That is a characteristic of a dictatorship, monarchy, or fascist state, not a democracy. You do know the difference, don't you?

Your columns are usually off the mark in a benign, loopy way. This one was way off the mark in a frightening, dangerous way. I hope you see fit to change your mind as more facets of the president's disregard for our laws and our Constitution are revealed.