I commend him for remaining consistent in that insistence. He is absolutely correct that this is not a choice between security or liberty. In fact, I argue, as he has, that when we begin to retreat on the rule of law, we become less secure as a people. We have learned that lesson painfully throughout history. This is the time for us to be vigilant, both in terms of our security and also when it comes to our rights. This is an issue that ought not divide people based on our determination to deal with terrorism or those who wish to do great harm to our country but to recognize that historically, when we have been motivated by fear and have failed to stand up for basic rights, we have made horrendous mistakes. When we have stood up for our rights as well as insisting on our security, we have done our job as a generation, as previous ones have as well. This is one of those moments history will look back upon. Why did we say that 17 phone companies that relied on a letter and not much more than that decided for over 5 years to invade the privacy of millions of Americans and would still be doing it today but for a whistleblower who revealed the program?
Editor's note · Context
Discussing civil liberties and security in relation to government surveillance practices.
Share
More from Chris Dodd
I rise today to pay tribute to a colleague and friend of mine--Senator Evan Bayh--who will be retiring from the U.S. Senate when the 112th Congress convenes in January. I would like to take this moment to thank Evan for his service, and…
The FTC's red flags rule implementing section 114 of the FACT Act became effective on January 1, 2008. The rule applied to ``creditors,'' defined under the FACT Act the same way as in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, ECOA, to include any…
In fact, it was the uncertainty inherent in a nontransparent and reckless financial system that made Dodd-Frank necessary in the first place.
Forging partnerships among equals means by definition that we cannot get our own way all of the time.





