By JULIA KASEEM, Guest Writer
Opposition to the National Security Agency (NSA), an anomaly of a concept within intelligence and governmental institutions, has found its voice within the Senate last Tuesday in Senator Diane Feinstein’s most recent fiasco.
Last Tuesday, Feinstein raised an uproar in a backstage battle between the CIA and Senate when the CIA allegedly was discovered to have breached into the Senate’s security documents. The de-jure stakeholder for the intelligence community had quite a few things to say in her ardent change-of-heart vocalizations against the agency’s scandal. Perhaps her “concerns” weren’t so “grave” when those same violations of “separation of powers principles embodied in the United States Constitution” were imposed upon the people.
I would have certainly agreed. Republican Appointed District Judge Richard J. Leon’s arguments in a 68-page opinion that “such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment” was just, perhaps, an The plurality of loyal Democrats .
Like many mainstream Democrats, Feinstein equivocated her official textbook-
agenda liberalism with staunch neo-liberalist vindication of the embattled National Security Agency. Unlike Democrats, however, Feinstein rightfully vocalized her outrage when her own privacy rights were being explicitly violated, albeit the overarching hypocrisy in how and when Feinstein chose to vouch for “fourth amendment rights.”
Even when leaks, courtesy of whistleblower Edward Snowden, revealed the government’s mass metadata program or extensive wiretapping track record, the majority of Democrats didn’t do so much as bat an eyelash. Despite all the average American has at stake with these jeopardizing jurisdictions, apparently these consequences aren’t enough to press the 69% of Democrats prioritizing the government’s investigation of terrorists (as well as 62% of Republicans and 59% of into similar righteous indignation.
A false equivalency, maybe? Are Senate documents really like emoji-embellished
text messages? Not superficially. But when you consider the case of any and all of this government cultivated “evidence” that potentially can be tailored against citizens, the empirical cases surmount the proposed possibilities of civil liberties defenders. If the 5-4 decision by Justice Samuel Alito challenged in court, thereby directly barring the practice of Fourth Amendment rights by citizens, isn’t outrageous enough, perhaps the flagship empirical editorials chronicling the consequences faced by everyday Americans disenfranchised by such policies is precisely the manifestation of this malignant potential.
Though the unwarranted collection of private data already constitutes abuse, use of this data included daily policing of Occupy protests.
Discredit former counterterrorism official Glenn L. Carle, after remarks against the Iraq arguing government wiretapping laws cannot be as well as nefarious use in collecting information to War prompted officials in the White House to secretly collect information on Carle.
Given its history of Watergate style political payback practiced at home and abroad, it’s no wonder why the NSA pushes for unwarranted and unabridged access to data.
In light of the old exhausted pretext of safety and counterterrorism, no documents of the collective evidence have been used in criminal prosecution. And despite overwhelming evidence citing surveillance’s inefficacy, the US government similarly was unable to provide evidence necessitating such programs. On such a shaky, unsolidified basis are the Democrats’ Orwellian adherences to their all the more evident.
In what Snowden cites as the “Architecture of Oppression,” the consequences imposed by our surveillance state surmount marginal discomfort. Privacy has been redefined to satisfy a check mark on the “Block” option of an unwanted Facebook guest, but leaves doors
wide open for data collectors behind those venues to manipulate the information
gets sent to and from your domain in that, supposedly, public cyberspace. Just as
corporations pull at the drawstrings of your personal information to manipulate the
information sent to your screen under tailor-made preferential autonomy, the
government similarly employs a similar tactic of helping itself to this amassed metadata under its own guise of security.
The colliery of Catch-22 contradictions only has continued its coincidental legacy
following Feinstein’s outrage over the CIA’s alleged hack into Senate computers. If
Edward’s Snowden and Glenn Greenwald’s joint and explicit exposition, through leaks that and Guardian articles, of such policies weren’t enough to have the Democrats rescind rallying support of Bush-era style surveillance policies, will the Senate’s ironic incident be any more provocative? If politics really do evoke the monkey-see monkey-do response from their respective loyalists, what can we expect of the public when the outrage comes from some of those leaders themselves?