The Bullet We Dodged

Watching the news last night, I found myself reflecting on the life that could have been. I was watching Al Gore speaking, or more accurately ranting, to a group of the faithful regarding the sins of the Bush administration. What would life be like today had he won the 2000 election? Was this an example of presidential timbre? Dare I recall the questions of “gravitas” necessary for our chief executive?

As opportunity has presented itself today to see, read and hear more of the comments of Mr. Gore, I’m even more deeply astonished. Is this the level of leadership America should expect from one of the chief spokesmen of one of the two major political parties?

There was a litany of accusations in Gore’s diatribe, but the one that made the major news outlets was the issue of communications intercepts conducted by the National Security Administration at the direction of the President to gain intelligence on terrorist activities. The former vice-president characterized this activity as a grave threat to the very Constitution of the United States and a danger to each and every citizen. But is it?

The danger of erosion of the First Amendment is certainly omnipresent. We should strenuously safeguard our freedoms of speech and political expression. We should guard the Fourth Amendment’s protection of our privacy as well. Clearly listening in when we have an expectation of privacy in our conversations is something we should not let the government get away with. Or should we?

Then I came across this piece by Pete Dupont in the Wall Street Journal: Defending the Nation

It makes a very good case regarding what the Founding Fathers thought about intelligence gathering and the role of the Commander-in-Chief. And, I’ve got little reason to challenge the conclusions. Why then do we find the Democrats so active in what is apparently a defense of the freedom of those who would destroy us to be secure in the knowledge that they can communicate freely?

A favorite question of mine when starting classes discussing the Bill of Rights was regarding the meaning of the first phrase of the First Amendment. You know the one, “Congress shall make no law…” Clearly, the shelves of legislation passed over the last 200 years addressing speech, assembly, press, expression, searches, jeopardy and more indicate that “Congress shall make no law…” means nothing like what the plain English would indicate.

The Founders had no possible way of foreseeing the development of modern communication. They would be astonished, I’m certain, if confronted with the telephone, cell phones, the Internet and satellites. They did, however, understand what a threat to the nation looked like. And, they quite clearly understood the importance of providing the chief executive entrusted with maintaining the security of that nation with the necessary latitude of action to do the job.

I’ve got no expectation of security in my email or my cell phone conversations. I know that these methods of communicating pose a risk that someone may intercept the messages. Hence, if I’m planning some sort of nefarious activity, I find it prudent to avoid such risky behavior.

I do have an expectation of my government doing the very best job they can with all of the modern gadgetry at their disposal of protecting me and my country from further attacks. Why can’t the liberal left figure this out?