Spying without permission

Deseret Morning News editorial
Published: Sunday, Dec. 18, 2005 8:13 p.m. MST
E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
The comforting part of the New York Times disclosure last week that President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans is that the story was published at all.

It shows that, even though government in this country is growing larger and more powerful each year, dangerous abuses of power do not go undetected. By the Times' own account, nearly a dozen people with knowledge of the program agreed to discuss it with reporters after being granted anonymity "because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight."

It's also a strong argument for federal and state shield laws, which would protect reporters who grant anonymity. This appears to be a clear case in which the public's interest in knowing the truth outweighs all other consequences. What a travesty it would be if someone tried to jail the reporters involved unless they revealed the names of the whistle-blowers.

Finally, it also demonstrates that the mainstream news media acts responsibly. The Times said it sat on the story for one year after meeting with administration officials who said its publication might possibly compromise investigations into terrorist activity. Even the published report, the paper said, omitted some items the White House said could help terrorists.

Story continues below
On one level, the president's apparent willingness to allow warrantless eavesdropping is understandable. Whenever national security is at risk, as it has been since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, government's inclination is to use whatever means are available to uncover plots before they can be executed. In times of emergency, chief executives always have stretched the envelope of constitutional power. Even Abraham Lincoln was not afraid to jail editors who favored secession. He jailed members of the Maryland Legislature, as well, to prevent a vote to leave the union.

But those moves took place at a time of imminent peril. To allow the surveillance of thousands of phone calls and e-mails, without a court's approval, in hopes of heading off acts of terrorism doesn't rise to that level. Neither would similar wiretaps to head off murders or other crimes not associated with terrorism — unless law-enforcement officers can demonstrate to a judge that the public's interests demand a warrant for such a thing.

The United States must never degenerate into a nation where a powerful central government can spy on its citizens with impunity. Power must be checked. In this case, investigators must prove to a court that they need information before they obtain it.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.