Stephen Krewson | A slippery slope

Critics and fans have already hailed The Bourne Ultimatum for its heart-stopping cinematography, crescendoing chases, and spy-thriller smarts.

Yet the summer's most popular action flick is also remarkable for its political timeliness. There's a particularly gripping scene in which Matt Damon's Jason Bourne arranges a meeting in London's Waterloo Station with a British reporter who has just uncovered a black-ops CIA program.

In the course of their rendezvous and subsequent flight, Bourne fires off a text message. Cut to the CIA's "deep-cover Counterterrorism" office in New York. One of the techs shouts, "We've got an incoming text."

The response of the villainous CIA chief is as confident as it is swift: "Get it." Needless to say, it does not end well for the reporter (though Bourne, of course, escapes).

But are these flashy electronic hijinks even possible, let alone legal?

"The technology to intercept any communication exists in principle and in recent years wiretapping and other surveillance has become much more cost-effective," said Computer and Information Science professor Jonathan Smith.

Ever since 9/11, vast amounts of money and energy have been spent enhancing the capability of our intelligence mechanisms - the reach of which is not known to the general public.

"Technology has always been a double-edged sword," said Smith, who consults for the Department of Defense. "Just like the use of antibiotics can combat harmful bacteria but also create 'superbugs,' so too can the indiscriminate use of surveillance undermine civil liberties."

War has always been a valid-and constitutional-justification for the curtailment of certain freedoms. When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1863, he wrote that he was devoted to use of the writ before and after the turmoil of the Civil War.

In today's "War on Terror" however, there doesn't seem to be much chance of an "after" in which to scale back invasive security programs.

Just days before the release of Ultimatum, Congress nearly tripped over itself in its rush to pass the "Protect America Act," which expands the surveillance powers granted to the government.

In effect, the warrantless wiretapping that gave Bush and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez such a black eye is now legal. What's more, the act's elastic phrasing will undoubtedly facilitate the administration's trademark legal gymnastics.

The director of national intelligence and the attorney general are empowered to "authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States."

With no warrant and scant judicial or congressional oversight, the NSA may now eavesdrop on all international calls and e-mails sent by Americans; indeed any international call that is routed through the US.

It's entirely possible that students studying abroad - especially in the more volatile regions of the world - could be listened to when they phone home.

University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, a specialist in Middle Eastern studies, reported in 2004 that recruiters for US security agencies had advised students against going overseas to study in Arab countries. Apparently, doing so can cast doubt on the students' political allegiances.

Penn's Middle East Center has partnerships with many such programs, including institutions based in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan

In the midst of this increasingly shrill debate, it is easy to appear paranoid or alarmist. Truth be told, federal wiretapping probably has zero practical effect on the average American. Even if you proved to me that a suit in Langley had eavesdropped on my conversations, my reaction would be mild annoyance at worst.

Still, the rash of resignations and investigations currently plaguing the Executive Branch points to a cavalier attitude towards the law that must be stopped.

That the Bush administration violated the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act restrictions on surveillance in the aftermath of 9/11 seems a moot point.

It's true that the question of how to balance liberty versus security will never go away. But security is big, macho and wears camo. Liberty, on the other hand, is fragile and young and requires constant vigilance to prop it up in the face of security.

We might not need to fight as hard as Jason Bourne, but we need to push.

Stephen Krewson is a College sophomore from Schenectady, NY. His e-mail is krewson@dailypennsylvanian.com. The Parthian Shot appears on Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.