To What Degree Private?

The Constitution of the United States does not specifically mention a right to privacy even though prohibitions against illegal searches and seizures may be construed as such. Rulings by the US Supreme Court have also led us to believe that there is a fundamental right to privacy in such issues as abortion, to name only one. So with the Bush administration insisting that it had the authority to "spy" via the National Security Agency, especially after 9/11, has this "right" that seems inherent to humanity been somehow violated?

Consider what one may be doing "in private". It is illegal to make war or plan the overthrow of the US government. If this is part of what is being done privately (and it most certainly would be!), is this privacy then protected even if illegal activity is being planned? Some court rulings would suggest that while the activity itself is illegal, the law offers protection while the illegal activity is being planned out.

Many drug dealers have been turned loose over the years because the police didn't follow proper procedure or failed to cross a T or dot an i. But because something was overlooked, an obviously guilty person was allowed to walk away. In the case of President Bush's argument, if the NSA was not allowed to do this internal spying, the results could be that MANY innocent Americans will not walk away.

Where do we draw the line? I am not necessarily in favor of granting special privileges to any president. Mr. Bush reminds us that we are at war and even though the Congress granted him permission to use force, there was never a formal congressional declaration of war. However, we do know that those whom we are fighting deliberately and intentionally target civilians.

This means that your spouses, children, and parents are in danger. The threat is real. Whether we have brought it on ourselves is irrelevant. The fact is in the present, and presently we are threatened almost daily. Considering the relative security we now enjoy, I would say that the NSA, CIA, and FBI are doing exceptional jobs protecting us and staying a couple of steps ahead of the bad guys.

Each of us, without exception, has something at stake here. It is whether we would allow such latitude to a president - not just this president but rather the office. It is a concern now because this president will soon be out of office, and a precedent is being established.

Do not be fooled, however, over congressional political posturing over this. Those who are making the most noise about it now are, by their own admission, those who were notified as President Bush had said. Now they are insisting that they were not told "enough". My question to them: where was the outrage then? Why now? And as far as being able to "trust" anyone, consider that Michigan democratic Senator Carl Levin wrote a "private, hand-written" letter to VP Cheney regarding this matter. Rather than send it to the VP, however, Senator Levin released it to the AP. How much information would you entrust to this man?

President Bush insists that the issue involved is National Security. Democrats are insisting that the issue is privacy. Which takes precedence over the other?