Americans Hypocritical About Drones

The United States is currently skirting international law by violating the sovereign airspace of other countries without their permission. They are doing this with the use of drone aircraft. It is known that these drones are being used in Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran (we know they are in Iran because the Iranians shot one of them down). But that is not all. The State Department has said it is considering widening the use of drones to other countries.

But a new Rasmussen Poll shows that a majority of Americans don't see any problem with the U.S. government using drones in this illegal way. In fact only 9% of Americans oppose the use of drones to spy on and even kill "terrorists" in other countries, while 76% approve of this (although it is unclear how anyone can know if the people being spied on or killed are terrorists or innocent civilians). And 50% of the population thinks the president should have the authority to use drones over foreign countries without getting the approval of Congress.

This is American exceptionalism at its worst -- the idea that America should be allowed to do things that other countries shouldn't be allowed to do. I'll bet 100% of the people in this country would think it was wrong for another country to use drones over American airspace -- even if they claimed to be hunting for "terrorists".

But it gets even worse. A majority of Americans don't want drones used over the United States, even when it is being done by our own government. Last week the U.S. Congress passed legislation that would make it easier for law enforcement agencies in this country to use drone aircraft for surveillance only. But this same Rasmussen Poll shows that 52% of Americans oppose this legislation. Only 30% approve of it, while 17% are undecided.

So, while only 30% of Americans think it is proper to use drones in America for surveillance, about 76% think it is OK to use them in foreign countries -- even to kill people. That sounds like the height of hypocrisy to me. Frankly, we shouldn't do anything in another country that we wouldn't allow that country to do in the United States. After all, don't we claim to believe in fairness and justice? Shouldn't we practice what we preach?

Bush Refuses To Compromise (Again)

Last week the Senate knuckled under to President Bush again. They passed the bill that would allow him to eavesdrop on anyone, even Americans, at any time and any place with no safeguards. They even gave telecommunications companies immunity from the law if they cooperate with the spying.

But the House of Representatives has passed a different version of the bill -- one that would not give immunity to the telecoms. The House Democrats were hoping to meet with the Senate and work out a compromise.

Yesterday, Bush dashed those hopes. He said there was no way he would accept a compromise. I would have to agree. I don't think there should be a compromise either. The House Democrats should hold fast to their position.

If Bush wants to kill the bill by refusing to compromise, they should let him do that. Frankly, the bill is not only not needed, but I believe it is unconstitutional. Our Founding Fathers believed the government should never intrude upon the privacy of citizens without a court-approved warrant and probable cause.

There was good reason for that belief. They knew if the government could perform warrantless searches, then freedom was gone. Freedom can only exist when the citizens have rights that cannot be abridged by the government.

Bush says we wouldn't be able to listen in on terrorists conversations if the bill is not passed and telecoms aren't given immunity. That is just a lie!

FISA already gives the government the ability to get a secret warrant to eavesdrop. With a warrant, the telecoms are not only protected but cannot refuse to cooperate. Our government can get the job done with the current FISA law, and protect the rights of American citizens at the same time.

I urge House Democrats to take Bush at his word and refuse to compromise. Let this bad bill die. It is not only invasive, it is not needed.