Tuesday, January 10, 2006

A Political Story

Lynn was born in Iraq. He moved to the United States and became a naturalized citizen. Lynn still maintains strong ties with his family in Iraq. He calls his parents and siblings as frequently as practicable.

One day Lynn is reading the newspaper in a coffee shop nearby where he lives. He learns that the government is collecting surveillance on phone calls by U. S. citizens to Iraq. All the miracles of modern information technology have been used to scrape and mine this information from phones, telecommunication switches, and the Internet.

Lynn becomes concerned. He knows the stories about those people who are considered enemy combatants and how they have no rights under U. S. law whether they be U. S. citizens or not. He decides to investigate the matter on his own.

He soon realizes that he has no chance of gaining information about himself because of the power and secrecy of the agencies who monitor and control the surveillance programs. He decides to sue the U. S. government to find out whether the NSA has been gathering information on him. He finds adequate legal counsel who are interested in taking his case.

Lynn’s suit bubbles up through the various courts in the land until it reaches the Supreme Court. By the time it reaches the court, it becomes apparent that Lynn’s private communications have been monitored by the NSA without legal warrant or probable cause.

Lynn’s legal counsel claims that his fourth amendment rights have been violated. The Attorney General of the United States claims they have not been violated.

Lynn’s case is at the center of a huge national Constitutional and political debate. The Congress and President have battled over the issue. The controversy has been at the center of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices. The nation’s most reputable and learned legal scholars have publicly debated the issue. All of the news media have shown their spotlights on surveillance issues.

The Supreme Court rules on the case. Supply your own ruling. The law of the land is what the Supreme Court says it is. Game, set, match over.

The day after the decision, Lynn is watching C-Span. The Senate is holding hearings on a prospective Supreme Court judge. An unctuous Senator implores his colleagues not to play politics with the hearings and the nomination.

Lynn thinks, “don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining, Senator. It's all politics from top to bottom, side to side, front to back, across all time.”

3 Comments:

At 9:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure how to read this. (At a minimum, I hadn't read your personal stuff and didn't know you were male.) Is this literally true? Metaphorically true? And, maybe I should read it no matter what as literally true...

 
At 11:34 PM, Blogger Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 7:51 PM, Blogger Lynn said...

Jodi,

The story is a fiction. I was meditating on what the current debate about surveillance activities might come to as a practical matter. It would seem that ultimately some citizens, who feel their fourth amendment rights have been violated, will have to bring a suit against the government for the issue to be resolvled. At that point it gets down to what courts think about it. The political appointments to those courts matter. The thought was triggered by the Alito hearings.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home