The debate about whether to continue the dragnet surveillance of Americans' phone records is highlighting divisions within the Democratic and Republican parties that could transform the politics of national security. <\/p>\n
While some leading Democrats have been reluctant to condemn the National Security Agency's tactics, the GOP has begun to embrace a libertarian shift opposing the spy agency's broad surveillance powers a striking departure from the aggressive national security policies that have defined the Republican Party for generations. <\/p>\n
The lines are drawn but not in the traditional way. The Republican National Committee, civil libertarians like Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and liberals like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren are on one side of the debate. Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, Democratic former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the House and Senate leadership are on the other side, defending the Obama administration's surveillance programs as necessary to prevent terrorism. <\/p>\n
The split in each party could have practical and political consequences ahead of the 2014 midterm elections and the 2016 presidential contest. <\/p>\n
Congress may address government surveillance this spring in one of its last major moves before members head home to focus on the November elections. But if Congress punts the surveillance debate to this time next year, it would resurface just as the presidential primary campaigns are beginning. <\/p>\n
At issue is the bulk collection of millions of Americans' phone records, authorized under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. Details of the program were secret until June when a former NSA systems analyst, Edward Snowden, leaked classified documents that spelled out the monumental scope of the government's activities. The bulk collection provision in the law is set to expire June 1, 2015, unless Congress acts to renew or change the program sooner. <\/p>\n
More than a decade after the 9\/11 terrorist attacks, Americans have become less willing to support invasive surveillance tactics in the name of national security. Recent polls show a sharp decline in public support for the NSA programs created under George W. Bush and continued under Obama. <\/p>\n
The Obama administration justifies the surveillance program, in part, by pointing to Congress' continued approval and support. But the president also has called for some changes in an effort to win back public trust that would provide more privacy protections and transparency but not end the program completely. <\/p>\n
Clinton, the overwhelming Democratic favorite should she seek the presidency, has been virtually silent on the NSA debate for months. Last fall she called for a full, comprehensive discussion about the practices but also defended the surveillance: From my own experience, the information-gathering and analyzing has proven very important and useful in a number of instances, she said. A Clinton spokesman declined further comment last week. <\/p>\n
Paul, a prospective Republican presidential hopeful and tea party favorite, contrasted Clinton's position with his own aggressive opposition to Bush-era intelligence programs, as polls suggest that a growing majority of Republicans tea party supporters in particular are deeply skeptical of the federal government. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n