The presidential candidate debates so far have been interesting, but they have lacked critical discourse about a range of issues. In particular, the National Security Agency’s program of surveillance on U.S. citizens and persons abroad has been left largely ignored in terms of its impact on personal privacy and security in the next century. Of the nominees from both sides of the isle, only Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Ted Cruz have voiced strong opposition to what is widely criticized as an illegal and unconstitutional program of warrantless spying on millions.
Cruz has said that the USA Freedom Act is the “single best chance to end the bulk collection of meta data.” Paul has pledged to “immediately end the NSA's illegal bulk data collection” because it violates the Fourth Amendment. Sanders justifies his opposition to the program over worries about the infringement of citizens’ privacy rights and the cooperation between corporations and the NSA to collect data.
In contrast, some leading or more mainstream candidates support the program, including businessman Donald Trump and former Gov. Jeb Bush. Some candidates have refused to take a solid position, as in the case of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or neurosurgeon Ben Carson.
The media outlets on which the public rely to ask the right questions are failing to do so. During both the Democratic and Republican debates, NSA spying has come up in moderator questioning or public tweeting only rarely. Meanwhile, in the Democratic debates, there has been little pressure for Hillary Clinton to take a stance on the issue. The fact that candidates do not feel intense pressure to choose a position is evidence of the underrepresentation of privacy rights and the legality of warrantless data collection in our national discourse.
The lack of substantive debate on this issue is severely limiting for the future of American and worldwide democracy. The inability to restrain modern governments to respect the same old freedoms of privacy through a new medium is scary because of the potential for abuse by those in power. Government has taken on these new powers without the proper discourse. It is inherently illiberal to keep intrusions on people’s privacy a secret in the name of their own security. The choice is potentially between a utopian state where liberty is respected and a big brother-type government that dominates society and the private spheres of individuals in the name of security.
The importance of this discussion is elevated when considering the context of global terrorism and the tools we have available to fight that scourge. The key question that must be on the minds of every American is whether some of our privacy can or should be sacrificed in the protection of our security. So far we have sacrificed personal liberty in defense of security during moments of intense emotional instability. After the 9/11 attacks and in the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan our fear and willingness to do whatever it takes to be safe is damaging to rational discussions of the merits and demerits of government surveillance programs. An emotionally inflamed individual cannot make rational choices regarding his safety or the safety of others.
The inability to have a rational discussion is what led us to the point where NSA surveillance was a well-kept secret and had to be leaked in order to be brought into the national discourse. Rather than having open debates, legislators and the executive, with the sanction of the courts, moved to do what they thought best for America without the input of average citizens. This divide has been perpetuated by the failure of the various news networks and the resistance of candidates to make this the dominant issue it should be in 2016.
Sawan Patel is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at s.patel@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 18 hours agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 2 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
