Do we need more watchdogs?

One of the activists among the survivors of the victims of 9/11 calls for another commission. I think it would be a waste of time, in light of the inability of Congress to set aside political games and just do something for the good of the country. No, it has to benefit labor unions, or maintain the fiefdoms of a bunch of committee chairs. And don't respond to any intelligence without a judicial hearing or a congressional debate, no matter whether it will be gone within moments.

I keep seeing the quote "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," attributed to Ben Franklin. I'm pretty sure he was talking about the choice between fighting for independence and repose in the tender mercies of the British. When we elected our own government, the equation changed somewhat. I don't see the efforts to protect us from terrorists as a limitation on any liberties I enjoy. I keep trying to understand what the Privacy Freaks are worried about. If we want absolute privacy, we shouldn't be living in society. We gave it up when we started living and trading with others.

Why should we have to hire watchdogs to watch the watchdogs we already have? I think Bush has been doing what he's supposed to and getting not a word of thanks for it. I'd almost like to see Hillary! get elected just to make a point, but only almost.

Update: According to Robert F. Turner Ben Franklin wouldn't have applied his famous dictum to the president's authorization of NSA wiretaps:

First of all, the Founding Fathers knew from experience that Congress could not keep secrets. In 1776, Benjamin Franklin and his four colleagues on the Committee of Secret Correspondence unanimously concluded that they could not tell the Continental Congress about covert assistance being provided by France to the American Revolution, because "we find by fatal experience that Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets."