There are two subtly different meanings of the word compromise. One meaning, used by those politicians of the FISA Amendments Act, suggests reconciliation between two opposing sides.

That sounds so nice, doesn’t it? Who could argue against coming together, so that both sides can have a little bit of what they want? Well, to tell the truth, I could.

Sometimes, compromise is a downright rotten idea. Let’s say that you meet up with a cannibal who says that he wants to kill you and eat you. Would you seek a compromise? Would you say, “No, I’m sorry, I don’t want to let you kill and eat me, but for the sake of common ground, why don’t I cut off my left hand so that you can have a snack?”

Sometimes, I have a feeling that the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives might think that compromise would be a good idea. I wouldn’t.

This brings me to the second meaning of compromise: The creation of a dangerous vulnerability. For example, if the pipes from a sewage treatment plant got crossed up with the rinsing system at the strawberry packing plant next door, we could say that the food safety protocols at the strawberry packing plant had been compromised. Or, in the case of the cannibal, if you went ahead and cut off your left hand to provide a snack, we could say that your circulatory system had been compromised, or that your ability to play the guitar had been compromised.

It’s this second kind of compromise that was achieved with the passage of the FISA Amendments Act by the U.S. House of Representatives. In this case, it’s the fourth amendment to the Constitution that has been compromised. That’s the part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees protection from search and seizure without a warrant.

There are some things in life that just shouldn’t be compromised: Things like whether a cannibal gets to eat part of your body, or whether strawberries should be rinsed in sewage, or whether the Constitution is the law of the land in the United States. If these things are compromised, grave threats to life and liberty result.

That was the idea behind the statement made by Elijah Cummings, U.S. Representative from Maryland, after the FISA Amendements Act, H.R 6304, was passed by the House of Representatives on June 20,2008. Cummings wrote,

“Today is a very sad day for the people of America, as their government has decided to further infringe upon the protections afforded to us by the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Our Founding Fathers recognized our right to privacy as being so critical that they had the foresight to make it an Amendment in one of our most revered and fundamental documents—the very foundation of our nation’s democracy.

My colleagues and I were elected to the U.S. Congress to represent the will of the people and to protect U.S. citizens from threats both foreign and domestic. I am disappointed in the compromises that were made in this legislation, because when it comes to our civil liberties, there should never be any compromise. I will relentlessly fight to ensure that surveillance becomes as transparent as possible to provide the oversight needed to prevent its abuse against U.S. citizens.”