4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, June 19, 2006 e Uan jDadu JEREMY DAVIDSON Editor in Chief IMRAN SYED Editorial Page Editor JEFFREY BLOOMER Managing Editor EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890. 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their author. Editorial Board Members: Amanda Andrade, Emily Beam, Jared Goldberg, Theresa Kennelly, Christopher Zbrozek FROM THE DAILY Ad-'just'-ment Decision to hear NSA case marks welcome change RYAN JABER JUST MAKFr MU o 5 STANDPOINT NOTABLE QUOTABLE 44I'll do whatever she wants, and I have no idea what that is. I honestly don't know whether she's going to run." - Former president Bill Clinton discuss- ing his role in his wife's possible presidential bid, as reported Saturday by USA Today. A COLUMN FROM A MEMBER OF THE DAILY'S STAFF 4 4 More than just 'inconvenient' The uproar over the Bush Adminis- tration's domestic-spying program led this past week to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Lib- erties Union against the National Security Agency. In an effort to curtail efforts by the government to obtain phone and other records without a warrant, the lawsuit is one of the first against the many new measures the government initiated since Sept. 11. The ACLU has an impressive case against the NSA. Its argument alleges that the surveillance program violates not only the fourth amendment to the U.S. Con- stitution, but also the first. Infringements upon the fourth amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures are obvious. But the ACLU also asserts an infringement upon the first amendment because communications across the world from within the United States are hindered as a result of the program. But the suit's grievances don't end there. The ACLU also claims a violation of the For- eign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Thus, even if any court rules the program constitutional, it may still be found in viola- tion of FISA, which allows for limited wire- tapping by the executive branch. But FISA allows only for a maximum of 72 hours of warrantless wiretaps, within which the attor- ney general must obtain a warrant. NSA's program of warrantless wiretaps has certain- ly been functioning for longer than that. The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern Dis- trict Court of Michigan, and will be heard by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor. In agreeing to hear the case in the first place, Judge Taylor has already taken a sig- nificant step. Previous efforts by both the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and the Federal Communi- cation Commission to investigate NSA's policies have been thwarted, supposedly because the findings would be detrimen- tal to national security. But Judge Taylor declined to dismiss this particular case on similar grounds, perhaps marking a turn of the tide, where potential violations of civil liberties may actually be investigated and heard by the courts. Until now, the Bush Administration has not answered the charges levied against the NSA surveillance program sufficiently. Instead of debating the charges themselves, its response has simply been that such a program is needed due to the war against terrorism. Not only is such a reply inade- quate, it's also evidence of this administra- tion's circular reasoning that works only to suspend certain civil liberties indefinitely. The American public understands fully that there is a war, but we also understand that we fight this war to protect our liberties and freedoms, not to lose them to our own government. This case is an important mile- stone in this war because it will determine how far the government can reach into our lives to fight it. But government attorneys will likely not argue the ACLU case on its merits, but rather scold the judge for even agreeing to hear it in the first place. For a nation that prides itself on justice, govern- mental openness and accountability, that's simply not acceptable. Hopefully, the courts will send an important message that unmon- itored violations of Americans' constitution- al rights cannot go unpunished. BY IMRAN J. SYED We are told that ours is a democracy where issues win out. Partisanship and polarity may invade debate, but they never dominate it. Recent years have brought hollow stature to these sup- posed truths. Now more clearly than ever before, we see that anything, even our nation's beloved democ- racy, can falter if it is not tended. Our founding fathers planted seeds that sprouted into a wealthy, innovative nation, but no matter how grand a tree, its roots still feed in a soil easily depleted. And while it would be untruthful to deem the reser- voir of America's unquenchable passion for social progress depleted, there is no question that it's now as bare as our generation has ever experienced. Nowhere does complacency and negligence of our esteemed American values hold greater sway than in regard to global warming. Some still deem the concept simply a "theory," and for this there is a sad reason. There was a time when Americans would question what they were told, both by their leaders and their media - indeed, this is why our nation ever came to be in the first place - but we seem to have entered an era where the majority believe governmental lies and deceit are a thing of the past. But what would our venerable founding fathers say if we told them we believe global warming is not a threat because the politicians tell us so? Surely James Madison would quake at the notion of an American citizenry that blindly accepts what politicians say?' And now for some facts, which are the core, mantle and crust of Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." It's easy to dismiss this as a political film, and, after all, isn't Gore a politi- cian? Certainly, and that is why we must hold him accountable for what he says. No one is entitled to their own facts, and the facts Gore introduces in his film are not under dispute. It is a fact, for instance, that of the 936 articles written about global warm- ing in peer-reviewed scientific journals (the gold standard for academia), not a single one disputes the fact that global warming is real and that it is exacerbated by human activity. So, taking these articles as an indication, there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that global warming is real and human activity is compounding it. Thus, attempting to discredit global warming as "only a theory" is about as practical as dis- missing gravity as simply theory. One hundred percent of scientists will tell you that if you jump off a building, gravity will pull you down to a calamitous crash, but certainly that's only a "the- ory." There is no way to say with absolute cer- tainty that the next person to jump won't sprout wings and fly, but it wouldn't be wise to ignore that falling-down "theory." Why, then, do we continue to ignore the "theory" that says if we continue to burn upeverything that burns to power our apartment-sized SUVs, we will generate enough greenhouse gasses to make the plan- et's temperature hostile to its life-forms? Alas, it's because we have been told to ignore it - literally. Though the scientific community may be at near 100 percent consensus, it's the politically driven media that creates doubt and confusion about global warming in the mind of the public. As the film states, more than 50 percent of news stories written about global warming purport the phenomenon as unconfirmed. And we believe it. Why? Because it's easy to do so. But consider for a moment the consequences. The world is not indestructible, and what if what the "crazy liberals" (not to mention scientists) say about global warming is indeed true? Is it worth doing nothing simply because it's easy, cheap and popular? It's certainly not the American thing to do. But again, Gore is a politician (possibly gear- ing up for a presidential run), so we can't take everything he says as a given; it's our duty to scru- tinize it and derive its credibility. That's what I attempted to do. There is near- absolute consensus among film critics that the film is a success (see page 10 for that side of the story), but that doesn't prove the point. Wouldn't it be best if we could have scientists evaluate the film from a scientific perspective? After some snooping around, I came upon www.realclimate.org, a leading environmen- tal website run by climate scientists. They did find minor inaccuracies in Gore's film, but concluded: "For the most part ... Gore gets the science right ... The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institu- tional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change." So remember, we as American citizens have the responsibility to question what the politicians tell us, and so we must question Gore, too. But if we learn that global warming is a danger, then it's just as incumbent upon.us to take action by holding accountable those other politicians who play down the issue. Be us liberals or conservatives, the science is on Gore's side. It's immoral and a dereliction of our duty as American citizens to stand aside and not take action. Syed is the current editorial page editor. He can be reached at galad@umich.edu. LIVE ON YOUR FEETJJORI OQUL T WE WOULD LIKE TO SHUT DOWN EXCUSE ME MS. RICE, I HAVE A STOP CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE U1.DID i MENTION THAT THE PRISON ING 50 TAsOME O REUESWOULDN'T IT MAKE MAJORU SCERIT ATonR R OTEY ARE REALLY DANGEROUS? B"~.,. A, BTSMEMRESN B O UT BOWS IHUTOFRIGAYPROOF, - OF TOE CAMP X-RAY, GE THE AND SEGIN UPHOLDING THE PRISONR R HLI COSTITTION, THEREBY GEROS THERE U EPROCESS DEMO RATI HAT AMERICAN TO OE RELEA5E. OF LAW. JUSTICE IS THE MOST LAUDABLE AND FREE FORM OF JUSTICE IN THE WORLD?