Worthwhile comments on Domestic Spying.

First, of course, is today's news that the NSA's unconstitutional domestic spying program is much bigger than originally reported: "SPY AGENCY MINED VAST DATA TROVE, OFFICIALS REPORT". (Read the original NYT article).

Now, from Common Dreams is a round-up of comments worth your reading time, two from Southern newspapers:

- "Bush and Wiretaps: Congress, Citizens, This Means War"
Jay Bookman, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Fourth, and most fundamentally, this argument of necessity calls into question who we have become as a people.

More than 160,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq this holiday season, putting their lives, bodies, souls and futures on the line. Thousands more are on duty in Afghanistan. And while those of us here at home celebrate their bravery, for the most part we are not required to share in it. We let them do the fighting and dying for us; we do the applauding and burying.

We do, however, run an infinitesimally small chance of falling victim to a terrorist attack. It happened once; it could certainly happen again, and we should do everything within reason to prevent a recurrence.

But it does not seem too much to ask that in facing down that danger, we demonstrate just a fraction of the bravery and resolution that our soldiers show. Osama bin Laden, after all, is not Adolf Hitler or imperial Japan or the Soviet Union.

If we civilians quake at the comparatively minor danger that he and his followers pose, if we rush to offer up our civil liberties in hopes of a little more safety, we prove ourselves unworthy of the sacrifice that our men and women in uniform are prepared to make.

Yes, the president has told us we should be fearful, encouraging us to compromise not just our freedom but our constitutional system of government.

But if this is still the country we claim it to be, we will tell him no.

- "NSA Spooking You? Facts First, Please"
Russ Baker, Huffington Post

The talk is already about high crimes, about impeachment. It is about a strong constitution versus a strong president, safety versus civil liberties. But the important thing here is not to get caught up in tantalizing blue-sky scenarios before we address some key issues that we need to understand if we are ever to get our democracy back on track....

So let's talk about facts. And keep the discussion on them. What exactly was the problem with the prior set-up whereby the administration had to clear domestic eavesdropping cases with a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court within 72 hours of launching said surveillance? In other words, the government can eavesdrop first and get a warrant retroactively. Under what conditions was that not sufficient to guard our national security?

- "Constitution 101" / "Nixon's Third Term"
Editorial, Anniston [AL] Star

It’s good to know that we’re protected against vegans sneaking tofu into the nation’s meat supply and Catholic do-gooders trying to walk in Dorothy Day’s footsteps. But this is all beginning to have too much of a Tricky Dick vibe, and we’re in no mood to return to those bad old days.

- "Fear of the Devil: This Maze Leads to a Trap Without an Exit"
Robert C. Koehler, Common Wonders

The Bush administration's belief in Absolute Evil — or at any rate its success peddling that belief to Congress and the American public — has been one hell of a governing tool. Few politicians dare stand tough for tolerance and the rule of law in the face of the great abyss of "what if": What if we pull back on the firepower and the terrorists strike again? What if we follow the niceties of the Geneva Convention and the terrorists strike again?