The "national security" justification: Are there

It's been said that a cat won't sit on a hot stove twice, nor on a cold one either.  The cat learns a lesson from the hot stove - but it only learns that the stove itself is dangerous; it doesn't distinguish a hot stove from a cold one.

It learns, yes, but it learns the wrong thing, and in doing so it takes the "lesson" beyond the existential reality, i.e. that it is heat, and not the stove itself, that is dangerous.

Was 9/11 our "hot stove"?  In the panic that followed 9/11, did we "learn" the wrong things and, in so doing, did we in those first days thoughtlessly grant to the government powers that no democratic government should ever have, even under the notion of "protecting" us?  EVEN IF IT MEANS WE ARE LESS "SAFE"?

Are we so covetous of a life that's utterly free from any risk whatsoever, so that there is simply no limit to what we will permit the government to do under that banner?  What are the limits of "safety" in a free and open society, and if there are no limits, how free are we, and how open is our society?

The question arises not only at level of transnational terrorism, but in a million other ways, and the million other laws, agencies, regulations and rules that we have gradually, bit by bit and step by step, allowed government at all levels to impose upon us in the name of "protecting us" from one risk or another, and even in many cases protecting us from ourselves!!

In the case of the NSA's activities, we're urged to be "reasonable" - that we must accept a "balance" between privacy and security.   And of course, on its face, this does sound very reasonable, doesn't it?  But let's drill down a little deeper, shall we?

1.  Just what is this "balance", EXACTLY?  How is it actually DEFINED, in a CLEAR, PRACTICAL WAY, and how can we know when we've achieved this "balance", or - more importantly - when it's gotten "out of balance"?

2.  Has the government ever shown any inclination to impose on itself the restrictions that "balance" would imply with respect to the powers that it accumulates to itself?  And if, as seems likely, the only possible answer to that question is "no", what is the remedy?  I hope no one will say "the ballot box".

3.  Do we have a right, when we do surrender freedoms for a measure of safety, to demand that the powers we grant to the government be reasonably effective?  If so, the NSA's activities have only earned it a failing grade.  We have had several incidents that, if all of the "sifting and pattern-matching" of the NSA were of any real efficacy at all, should never have happened.  The Boston Marathon bombing incident, alone, should cause every single citizen to doubt the real value of what the NSA is doing.  There were phone calls to foreign countries (and even a region of a foreign country known for its radicals). There were emails.  There was foreign travel.  There were Facebook postings.  And that's not bad enough - there were even DIRECT WARNINGS from the Soviets - completely outside the "electronic surveillance" - that constituted a secondary channel by which these people should have bubbled to the very top of the hot list for electronic surveillance and much more.   Then, we have a radical officer in the ranks of our own military who kills fellow soldiers within the confines of one of our own forts - an officer who had been putting out electronic and other "warning signs" for a very long time.

If we're going to trade freedom for "safety", shouldn't we at least demand better than this??!!  We've been told that the "program" prevented a subway bombing.  Really?  In light of the now-demonstrated tendency of the government to prevaricate, I'm afraid I'm not quite willing to take anyone's word for that, but even if I did it wouldn't matter because of the crashing failures that we DO know about.

It's time, first of all, for us to pull up our big-girl and big-boy panties and realize that freedom does imply a measure of risk.  You cannot be both free and perfectly safe - from any sort of risk - so deal with it.   Bit by bit, over time, the government has presented us with some "horrible danger" to our well-being, demanded the power to "eliminate" this danger, and we have acquiesced...and acquiesced...and acquiesced.

Balance?  Can any of us truly say today that there is a reasonable balance between liberty and safety?  If you can, take a few days and pore over the OSHA regulations, the EPA rules, the horrific process and cost of bringing a drug to market - even one proven to be efficacious and safe in other countries.  Take a few evenings and attend your city or county council meetings.  Read the minutes of your state legislature's deliberations.  Read the reports of Congressional committees.

It's not just terrorism, or safety from it (as if there were any such thing).  It's about the general tendency of Americans to grant powers to government without thinking - it's only this little regulation...it's only this little "approval process"...it's only this little rule...whatever. 

Enough is enough, as they say - but I'm afraid we've reached and passed the point where too much is too much.