I doubt if this will be published. The WSJ does not like being caught in biased reporting as proved by my previous non published letter found in one of my POSTS on Elizabeth Warren. Nonetheless, it was sent.
Subject: Editorial “The Surveillance Fiasco” – 3 June 2015
Dear Mr. Gigot:
Your 2 June 2015 editorial is a masterpiece of deception. In it, you vilify Senator Rand Paul, who I believe to be the Patriot, and praise Mr. McConnell as a “Rare honest actor”. Nonsense, your characterization of Rand Paul as having a “Paranoid imagination” and suggesting that the use during a campaign of using “digital tools that mine individual Web and cell traffic to target advertising” is the same as the NSA data gathering of private information is ignorant and foolish. One is public information while the NSA is private information. You then push the paranoid key that the country is in an “Era of ever more aggressive and sophisticated threats” yet you fail to identify them or show one instance of their use.
Your editorial is heavy on biased opinion and light on facts. You do not mention Rand Paul’s objective on the Senate floor as “This is a debate over the Bill of Rights,” “This is a debate over the Fourth Amendment,” “This is a debate over your right to be left alone.” The issue in his filibuster was not discussed by you.
The lack of merits in a transition from the Patriot Act to the USA Freedom Act is not discussed. Supporting GOP office holders who avoid of the nature of the 4th Amendment and its mandated civil liberties has been a characteristic of why Republicans with its current leadership, like Senator McConnell will never right this ship of state.
You did not remind your readers of the 4th Amendment itself which is very clear.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated , and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The tenet of the Fourth Amendment recognizing the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures was made absolute not relative to the times. We have a Constitution and this nation operates upon a principle of law. Thus, we should obey them. Further, the public media has a social responsibility to explain both sides of an issue – not just the one side that favors the administration or the large transnational firms. Somewhere in that mix, the people – your readers – have been forgotten.
Joseph P. Hawranek