A public at risk will surrender its rights

By James P. Pinkerton
Long island Newsday
As they attack George W. Bush on the surveillance issue, Democrats are proving themselves to be either really principled or really stupid, at least in terms of their electoral futures. I am having a hard time figuring out which it is -- although I have a hunch.
Many top Democrats seem convinced that "snoopgate" is a big winner for them. E-mailing his million or so closest friends, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean asks, "Did George Bush break the law?" The presumption is that Bush is guilty, of course, but Dean needs money now to launch his own investigation.
Other Democrats are climbing out even further on this particular Bush-bashing limb. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia and Sen. Barbara Boxer of California have both been throwing around the I-word, "impeachment," in recent days.
And some in the liberal-leaning media are fanning the flames. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter writes, "If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced." Let's get a grip here. Based on what we've seen so far, Bush is in no danger of losing his job. In fact, if this controversy continues, W. will likely go up in the polls. Why? Because the American people want to be safe. And they will surrender some of their rights to be safer. That political reality may infuriate hard-core civil libertarians, but it's true during all periods of wartime.
Mutual spying
All through the Cold War, for example, the American and British governments got around the rules against spying on their own people through a simple stratagem: Each government spied on the people of the other country, and then the two governments exchanged the resulting intelligence. This was "the Mid-Atlantic Swap," in which the U.K. Government Communications Headquarters spied on Americans, while the U.S. National Security Agency spied on Britons. It was cynical but legal.
The imperative of intelligence-gathering is bipartisan, at least at the presidential level. That's why Democrat Bill Clinton was willing to assert the same "inherent authority" of the presidency to bypass procedures on national security. And that's why surveillance programs with such delightful-sounding names as "Carnivore" emerged during the '90s.
It even appears that during George W. Bush's administration, many Democrats in Congress were briefed on at least some details. Most of them, it appears, didn't have any objection to this secret surveillance program -- until it was reported in The New York Times.
'Big Brother Bush'
That report seems to have encouraged the Democrats to speak out, perhaps in hopes of scoring points against "Big Brother Bush." But if that's what the Democrats think will happen, they are probably mistaken. Why? Because when the American people learn red tape has gotten in the way of thwarting terrorists, they react badly toward the red-tapers. The credibility of the 9/11 commission was badly hurt by reports that one of the 9/11 commissioners, Jamie Gorelick, blocked intelligence-sharing between the CIA and the FBI when she worked in the Clinton Justice Department. Americans are still scratching their heads over reports that valuable intelligence on future 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta, gathered under the "Able Danger" program, was destroyed in 2000 by some over-eager rule-follower.
Oh, and of course, if the Democrats were to succeed in restraining presidential snoop-power, and if there were to be another attack on the United States after that -- well, then, the Democrats would all have to look for new lines of work other than politics.
Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service