Should C.I.A. Directors have Privacy Rights?

The recent and ongoing intelligence community scandal involving former C.I.A Director David Petraeus and other high ranking military leaders is somehow morphing into a civil liberties battle for internet privacy rights; well at least as far as the A.C.L.U and the New York Times are concerned it is. According to liberals, investigating potentially compromising personal behavior of Central Intelligence Agency executives through cyber reconnaissance is now a dangerous violation of privacy rights.

In a November 13th New York Times article, Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the A.C.L.U. is quoted as calling for an investigation of improper F.B.I. “surveillance powers” by accusing federal investigators of “a textbook example of blurring the lines between the private and the public” with their investigation of then C.I.A. Director Petraeus’ private emails . So if I understand the A.C.L.U.’s argument correctly, the Director of an independent civilian (non-military) intelligence agency responsible for providing national security intelligence assessments to United States policy makers is entitled to keep his private life shielded from the prying eyes of federal law enforcement?

This might be a welcomed concept for some civil libertarians who wish to conceal the sordid details of their FaceBook accounts from government scrutiny, but for the average American who believes the government’s highest priority is protecting the nation this is a dangerous position to take. Only a media attempting to protect corrupt leadership could come up with something this ridiculous. Now blind, deaf, and dumb journalists and the A.C.L.U. are calling for the U.S. law enforcement community to ignore potential security breaches and/or federal crimes so Jay Carney can once again claim plausible deniability. So did President Obama burn out his executive privilege on “Fast and Furious” or is acting Attorney General Eric Holder running as fast as he can for the door?

I am not fan of warrantless search/seizure or suspension of due process rights, but if there is any group of people that Fourth Amendment protections should not apply to it is the employees of the U.S. government who hold security clearances. Access to classified information or “state secrets” and the power to manipulate the ebb and flow of intelligence data requires intelligence personnel to the obligatory and willful surrender of some constitutional protections in order to maintain the integrity of our national security apparatus. You would think that two West Point Graduates and the current Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan would have understood that before they put themselves and our nation at potential risk with their careless personal dalliances. Who is running this country anymore?

While attempting to fault “puritanical American culture” for our national intelligence community’s latest self-imposed national security/sex scandal; N.Y. Times liberal privacy advocates are arguing that sexual transgressions have no effect on an individual’s ability to govern effectively consequently monitoring personal electronic correspondence is not justified in a potential criminal investigation. A liberal opinion, I suppose, that was forged somewhere between the Bill Clinton Oval Office Pizza Party and former New York Congressmen Anthony Weiner’s crotch shots debacle.

Instead of diving head first into Benghazi and asking the tough questions American’s have been waiting two months to get answered, the New York Times is once again exercising its artistic license by attempting to spin another Obama Administration scandal into a failure of the conservative agenda. Somehow another Obama appointee failure is re-shaped into a call for reigning in the overzealous and intrusive domestic surveillance policies of the Bush Administration that have kept us safe since 911. American’s wonder once again if our government is capable of keeping us safe and liberal journalists and activists are calling for dismantling our intelligence capabilities and limiting our domestic investigative resources to protect government employee internet privacy rights? What or whom, I wonder, are they trying to protect?

Never in my lifetime have I experienced a more embarrassing and frightening display of abuse of public trust than I experience today. Is there any logic left in Washington? We are truly becoming a monarchy.

[js-disqus]