To PRISM or not to PRISM

That is the question

Below is the text of our Fourth Amendment:

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.
I am not a Constitutional lawyer, but I know how blessed I am to live in the land of the free. And here I want to emphasize the word live. And I want my fellow Americans to live as safely as possible, free from the threat of a terrorist attack. Yes, I am well aware that my government, no matter what branch, cannot guarantee any of us that we will not become a victim of terror. But, within reason, I want them to use every means at their disposal, including the most sophisticated technology, to thwart any possible attack.

The authors of the Fourth Amendment did not have any idea of what life in twenty-first century America would be.

Just this week I heard an interview with a journalist who used to cover the intelligence community for NPR. When she would ask the “higher-ups” in intelligence what most kept them up at night, their answer was a “terrorist attack using nuclear material.”

A few months ago, my wife was visiting our grandchildren in New York. The youngest, aged four, had been told by his mother, that he had had enough cookies for the day. A short while later, my wife noticed that he had pulled a chair over by the kitchen counter and had stationed himself where he was literally “caught in the act” with his hand in the cookie jar. When he saw his grandmother looking at him, he immediately said to her, “Go away! You don’t need to be in here.”

To PRISM or not to PRISM?

What do you think?

Rabbi Alvin Sugarman

Categories