Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
What a Difference Two Weeks Make
Yesterday the House and Senate both approved a 15-day extension of the Protect America Act, which was scheduled to expire on Friday, to allow time for further debate, mainly about whether to grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications carriers that assisted the NSA with its illegal surveillance of international communications involving people in the U.S. The White House, after threatening to veto a one-month extension of the law, which amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), has indicated it will go along with the shorter extension. This is the latest in a series of Bush administration reversals and self-contradictions regarding FISA.
After The New York Times revealed the existence of the NSA's warrantless surveillance program in December 2005, the administration said the program was perfectly legal. It also said it had to break the law, and continue breaking it for years, because complying with FISA would have made it impossible to stop terrorist attacks and because Congress would not have agreed to change the law (although it already had done so on more than one occasion). Then, in January 2007, the administration announced that it had found a way to do the impossible: comply with FISA and still conduct the surveillance necessary to fight terrorism. Later that year, it said that what had been impossible and then briefly possible was now impossible again, supposedly because of a secret court ruling finding that FISA requires a warrant to monitor foreign-to-foreign telephone calls and email messages if they happen to pass through U.S. switches, routers, or servers.
Last summer, when the administration asked Congress to fix FISA (something it supposedly had assumed Congress would never do), the bill it demanded not only addressed this technical problem; it also allowed warrantless surveillance of communications between people in the U.S. and people in other countries, as long as the people in foreign countries were said to be the targets. That authority, the administration insisted, was absolutely essential to national security, and even pausing to debate the issue meant that "Americans are going to die." Every day that U.S. intelligence agencies went without this power was a day on which Americans were needlessly exposed to the risk of a catastrophic terrorist attack. Terrified at that prospect (or terrified at being portrayed as insufficiently concerned about that prospect), Congress complied, but it put a six-month limit on the Protect America Act so the issue could be revisited in a less panicky climate.
With the expiration date approaching, the Democrats proposed another temporary extension, but the president said he'd veto any bill that did not make the FISA amendments permanent and add retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that had collaborated in the administration's end run around the statute. So even though the administration portrayed Congress as unforgivably reckless for taking time to consider whether the new surveillance powers were necessary and appropriate, Bush was willing to let them lapse just to show how serious he was about protecting us from terrorism. But now he has changed his mind again, seeing the merits of a temporary extension. If the president and his men can't even get their public story about warrantless surveillance straight, how can we trust them to secretly exercise the unilateral powers they are seeking?
|1.30.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Why do Democrats let the administration off the hook for
EVERYTHING?! It's not even good politics. It actually makes them
less likely to retain their new seats. I don't get it.
They should just do whatever is opposite of what he wants. That's
worth a few votes in November, right?
|1.30.08 @ 2:16PM|#
I suspect the administration wants as much power as it can get,
and the best cover story for these power grabs changes every time.
So, it's not that they're really changing their mind, so much as
the best cover story in the situation changes.
Now, the fact that they don't put any effort into reconciling these
cover stories is disturbing. The fact that they don't appear to
have to is even more disturbing.
|1.30.08 @ 2:24PM|#
So even though the administration portrayed Congress as unforgivably reckless for taking time to consider whether the new surveillance powers were necessary and appropriate, Bush was willing to let them lapse just to show how serious he was about protecting us from terrorism.
Heh. That'll learn 'em. Sort of gives the lie to Bush's claims of
necessity and his "reckless" criticism, as if it were in doubt. But
what is worse, the buffoonery of the administration's position(s)
or, once again, the inability of the Democrats to "Just Say No" as
it were?
Paul|1.30.08 @ 2:25PM|#
If the president and his men can't even get their public story about warrantless surveillance straight, how can we trust them to secretly exercise the unilateral powers they are seeking?
By getting the right people in charge. Oh, heard a superintendent
of public schools (somewhere, california?) this morning on NPR
saying that NCLB just needs to be fixed and properly funded...
|1.30.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Why do we need to snoop Canada to Canada calls? (The vast
majority of the calls routed through the US.) If there's any
indication they're terrorist related, the FISA warrant process was
still available.
I don't get why Reid didn't take the lazy way out and put the House
version to an up or down vote. Doesn't include amnesty or blanket
warrants.
|1.30.08 @ 2:28PM|#
It also said it had to break the law, and continue breaking
it for years, because complying with FISA would have made it
impossible to stop terrorist attacks and because Congress would not
have agreed to change the law (although it already had done so on
more than one occasion).
For all you legal beagles out there,I'm not arguing for
impeachment, but is this not an impeachable offense?
|1.30.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Just so I'm clear, this is the post-9/11 electronic monitoring that the adminstration began in the Spring of 2001, right?
Paul|1.30.08 @ 2:34PM|#
, but is this not an impeachable offense?
I believe that the president need not break a law for impeachment,
he need only be impeached for a breach of ethics.
|1.30.08 @ 2:42PM|#
Why do Democrats let the administration off the hook for
EVERYTHING?! It's not even good politics. It actually makes them
less likely to retain their new seats. I don't get it.
Because, as of late January next year, one of their own will likely
be the one who gets to trample all over our constitutional rights
for the next four years. Neither party minds intrusive government,
so long as they are the one doing the intruding.
|1.30.08 @ 2:45PM|#
...how can we trust them to secretly exercise the unilateral
powers they are seeking?
What jimmydageek said ... we cant.
Nick | January 30, 2008, 2:15pm | #
Why do Democrats let the administration off the hook for
EVERYTHING?!
crimethink | January 30, 2008, 2:16pm | #
I suspect the administration wants as much power as it can get, and
the best cover story for these power grabs changes every
time.
Couldn't be because they expect to be the administration too
someday (soon?) - wanting as much power as much as the other
guys.
...naaah, not the Demlicans,or am I thinking of the Republocrats...
oh never mind!
(wanders off to shovel snow out of the driveway)
p.s. I'm convinced it is Canadian snow. Thank (insert the
[capitalized] Word for the Supernatural Being you may or may not
believe in) Congress complied, but it put a six-month limit on
the Protect America Act so the issue could be revisited in a less
panicky climate. Everytime it snows Canadian stuff, I panic.
Six months from now the climate will be summer and I won't have to
panic until at least November 08 (Which it looks like I'll be doing
anyway, whether it snows or not - yikes!)
p.p.s. see Chris0 2:42 pm - re power-tripping administrations!
|1.30.08 @ 2:47PM|#
When the Democratic Congress forced Nixon to end the Vietnam
War, their position was vastly more popular than his. Nonetheless,
they were effectively painted as "soft on defense" and "soft on
communism" after that vote, despite its popularity at the
time.
A lot of baby-boom-era Democrats believe that allowing for such
framing will hurt them long-term, even as the polls show, as they
did in the mid-70s, that their anti-war stance was the more
popular.
Now, I personally think that they learned the wrong lessons from
that period. It wasn't ended the war or resisting the wartime
president that was their undoing, but culture war stuff. But you
can see how older Democrats, especially those from red states, can
be overly-skittish, if that's their frame of reference.
|1.30.08 @ 2:59PM|#
joe, I'd tend to agree with you if I thought for a second they
were thinking that far back in their decision making. They didn't
really think they won control of Congress because everyone wanted
universal health care did they? They knew they got elected to end
the war, right? So why not end it? They would be seen as doing what
they were told for a change and that would help them in the next
one or two election cycles. They could use the "we ended the bad
war you started" line for a good while.
I think they cared more about their personal earmarks and spending
bills than about ending the war. The fact that they added all kinds
of junk to the war spending bill proved that. That just made them
even more despised. Bad politicians, that's all I can say.
Aside from the obvious fact I would want all libertarians in
office, realistically I'm hoping for a Democrat in the White House
to piss off the Republicans and the GOP to retake at least one of
the houses of Congress to show the Democrats they blew it and they
deserve to lose seats because of it.
And for the umpteenth time does anyone know what country I can move
to and be free for Pete's sake? I'm getting to the point where I
may have to live without Sunday Ticket.
|1.30.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Nick,
They knew they got elected to end the war, right? So why not
end it? What are you, kidding me? What did I JUST WRITE?
Something about ending the Vietnam War being the more popular
position, too.
Politics these days is more about framing what kind of person you
are than being on the right side of issues, because the country is
so closely divided on the issues. The 10-20% minority faction of
the Democratic Party that keeps caving to Bush is afraid that even
a popular anti-war vote will allow the Republicans to frame them as
unpatriotic cowards - you know, like they were so-framed for 35
years, before the Iraq War went south.
|1.30.08 @ 3:05PM|#
When the Democratic Congress forced Nixon to end the Vietnam
War, their position was vastly more popular than his. Nonetheless,
they were effectively painted as "soft on defense" and "soft on
communism" after that vote, despite its popularity at the
time.
Interesting theory. I've always believed that Nixon & Co. knew
full well how unpopular the war was and were looking for a way to
gradually ramp it down. Which they did. In that sense, I don't
really think it was Congress who "forced" Nixon to end the
war.
The strategy was quite cynical, actually. By 1971, there were very
few U.S. combat troops left in Vietnam, even as our forces were
engaging in massive bombing campaigns and dragging Cambodia and
Laos into the war. But with few boots on the ground, "the silent
majority" didn't have to be confronted with large numbers of
bodybags coming home. The peaceniks obviously went apeshit, but
that was a political plus for Nixon, who knew his constituency
quite well.
Your point is well-taken on the "soft on defense" point, however,
and that has persisted right up to this day. But I think Democrats
brought that on themselves just as much or more than Nixon did,
simply because there was a fringe of the Democrats that loudly
seemed to identify more with the foreign Commies than they did with
their fellow Americans. And I don't think that "John Lennon
Democrats" will be able to capture a majority of American opinion
anytime soon, even with the unpopularity of the Iraq war.
stuartl|1.30.08 @ 3:06PM|#
While it is easy to just take shots at this administration, I
can certainly see why the following section from FISA is confusing
and would be subject to varying legal opinions:
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the
Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a
court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence
information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General
certifies in writing under oath that-
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at-
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted
by means of communications used exclusively between or among
foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of
this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the
spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises
under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined
in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
I do not know how the data is gathered, but it is easy to construct
cases where the necessity of a warrant is unclear. The example
Jacob gives is one of many:
...supposedly because of a secret court ruling finding that
FISA requires a warrant to monitor foreign-to-foreign telephone
calls and email messages if they happen to pass through U.S.
switches, routers, or servers.
I would expect different lawyers and judges to come to different
conclusions. A competent telecom person could come up with all
kinds of other variations where the law is unclear. To make life
harder on the administration, how data is gathered is classified
(for good reasons), so they cannot make any kind of public
case.
Paul|1.30.08 @ 3:06PM|#
they were effectively painted as "soft on defense" and "soft
on communism" after that vote, despite its popularity at the
time.
Joe, that was largely their own fault. There's no reason why a
Democrat can't be against this war and still be "strong on
defense". There are plenty of "hawkish" libertarians who are, for
example, against this war.
|1.30.08 @ 3:14PM|#
joe, I can read and I also wrote to you that I didn't believe for a second they were thinking about the defeat 35 years ago. They are only concerned with themselves. They are bad politicians if they can't turn everything the Republicans did to them against the Republicans. Most Americans in the middle, the ones that count on election day, understand the administration and GOP Congress lied, lied, lied. If the Democrats can't capitalize on that, they suck at what they do and they didn't deserve to get elected in 2006. I hope they get kicked right back out as a result. They are not just soft on defense. They are soft on everything which is why a weakened Bush still pushes them around like a schoolyard bully. If they want to be seen as tough, they need to stand up to him. If they are simply afraid, as you suggest, they don't deserve their position. Do you agree?
|1.30.08 @ 3:15PM|#
even as our forces were engaging in massive bombing
campaigns and dragging Cambodia and Laos into the war.
I believe that "our forces" didn't drag anyone into the war. The
NVA and the VC were using Cambodia and Laos as transport conduits
and staging grounds, so if anyone brought the war to those
countries, it was the North Vietnamese.
So anyhow, what was the body count in South Vietnam after we pulled
out?
stuartl|1.30.08 @ 3:15PM|#
And regarding amnesty, the FISA laws says:
(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this
subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified
communication common carrier to-
(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance
necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a
manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of
interference with the services that such carrier is providing its
customers;
If a company was directed by the attorney general to provide
information under FISA, it seems reasonable, to me anyway, that the
company be protected from a law that was ambiguous.
|1.30.08 @ 3:16PM|#
ChrisO,
Well, I was talking about public politics and perception.
Regardless of what was actually happening behind the scenes, that's
how the politics played out.
Paul,
I largely agree - at this point especially, being against the war
need not result in someone being seen as soft on defense. Look at
John Murtha. I think the Baby Boom Democrats who buy into that
theory are working off an outdated script.
|1.30.08 @ 3:18PM|#
Nick,
joe, I can read and I also wrote to you that I didn't believe
for a second they were thinking about the defeat 35 years ago. They
are only concerned with themselves. They ar afraid of it
happening again - afraid that a repeat of those events will hurt
them today, and tomorrow.
I'm not endorsing this opinion - I think it's been pretty
thoroughly put to be by people like John Murtha, Jim Webb, and Joe
Sestak. I'm just explaining it.
|1.30.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Old Habits die hard, Nick.
Imagine a politician born in 1950. He's in college beween 68 and
72. He sees the Democrats take up the anti-war position, followed
almost immediately by losing their two-generation-old national
majority. Ronald Reagan kicks their butts with the "Bear in the
Woods" ad.
The world actually did work that way from the time the guy became
politically aware, until well into his 50s. Of course perception is
going lag among such people.
|1.30.08 @ 3:34PM|#
"I'm not endorsing this opinion....I'm just explaining it." Then you better get on the horn to Harry and Nancy and tell them it ain't working. They're leaders right? Time to lead...and convince.
|1.30.08 @ 3:37PM|#
How could anyone be against the Protect America act?? Don't you want to protect America!?!?!
|1.30.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Nancy's ok. She whipped her chambing into opposing the Iraq AUMF
by a large margin. She passed a FISA bill with no immunity.
It's the pro-lifer from a red state who's still terrified the
Republicans will call him "soft." Who's dumbass idea was it to put
someone like that in the leadership?
|1.30.08 @ 3:52PM|#
Paul: I suspect the drive for amnesty relates to the Ashcroft/Comey hospital episode, following which there was a period without Attorney General certification.
|1.30.08 @ 3:57PM|#
When John freakin Ashcroft won't sign off on your program, you might want to step back and say to yourself: perhaps I'm going too far.
|1.30.08 @ 4:03PM|#
If a company was directed by the attorney general to provide
information under FISA, it seems reasonable, to me anyway, that the
company be protected from a law that was ambiguous.
I'd be more sympathetic to that if it was shown that the companies
in question exhausted all legal options to protect their customer's
privacy before agreeing to comply. If they just rolled over for the
administration than I see no reason to offer them anything. If the
law is that ambiguous then they had a duty to their customers to
interpret it in their favor and fight it as far as possible in the
courts.
|1.30.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Joe:
Well, I was talking about public politics and perception.
Regardless of what was actually happening behind the scenes, that's
how the politics played out.
My point, perhaps not clear enough, was that Nixon's strategy
helped created that public perception. By removing most of the
troops from the field during 1970-71, he painted the Democrats into
the same corner as the peaceniks if they wanted to draw a
distinction with him. The McGovernites fell right into his trap and
created such a strong image of "spinelessness" that Reagan was able
to capitalize on it for many years thereafter on a wide array of
foreign-policy topics. Public perceptions don't just happen.
There may be a lesson to be had here, especially for a cynical
Nixonian like Hillary. If you eliminate Middle America's reasons
for objecting to the Iraq war (body bags), you won't suffer much
when the war goes south. The public perception by the far left is
of minor consequence if you capture the middle, which Nixon did
very effectively, as evidenced by the 1972 race. It's cynical as
hell, but the Clintons strike me that way.
Expect "Iraqization" to start next year unless McCain wins. And who
knows, he might be enough of a shrewd operator to adopt such a
strategy himself.
Richard|1.30.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Christopher Hitchens, who telephones a lot of contacts in the
Middle East, was a (is?) a plaintiff in an ACLU lawsuit against the
NSA/telecoms. He hit the nail on the head when he said (a la
ChrisO's 2:42 p.m. comment) that once these unconstitutional
operations are in place, they never go away -- no matter who is in
power.
We all know that a terrorist attack of some kind is inevitable
sometime in the future. And if the target is selected thoughtfully
(such as a Little League game in De Moines or an NFL game with its
comforting security-theater pat-downs of fans), it would shut down
the entire country. Every American would be paranoid about being
killed by a terrorist, and every politician would be happy to
pander to that paranoia by eradicating his rights.
One more thing: The folks spewing this securi-babble never explain
why extra-legal surveillance measures are necessary. Won't
legal means do?
I'm waiting for a politician to stand up and say, "It's time to
stop trying to prevent a terrorist attack that happened six years
ago and give the people their rights back." I'm going to inhale
deeply and hold my breath now …
Oh, Brian. I think there were some telecoms that refused to
participate in the program. Alltel, maybe?
Philip Blumel|1.30.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Ron Paul on the Protect America Act, FYI:
"Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to the extension of the Protect
America Act of 2007 because the underlying legislation violates the
US Constitution.
"The misnamed Protect America Act allows the US government to
monitor telephone calls and other electronic communications of
American citizens without a warrant. This clearly violates the
Fourth Amendment, which states:
"'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized.'"
GILMORE|1.30.08 @ 4:09PM|#
I think the subtext of the story here (the inconsistency) is
that it's actually a non-issue, security wise, but rather is simply
something the Admin can use as a political volleyball to keep
forcing the democrats to be the "THEY ARENT PROTECTING YOUR
CHILDREN FROM TEH TERRISTS"-PARTY
Seriously. From what I've heard, the millions we've spent and reams
of communications intercepted, the whole thing hasnt been
particularly valuable in terms of actionable intelligence.we've The
trolling approach has never been as cost effective as targeted
research. In the analytical community, there's a expression for
this called "Boiling the ocean"... i.e. to catch a fish. It's not
the most efficient approach.
In this case, neither efficient or legal. It is sorta like the
rationale for a Space Missile Shield... even though there's
basically 1/10000th of a chance we're going to get into an
intercontinental ballistic conflict (compared to say 1980), the
idea that NOT having a shield leaves us "in danger" is very
persuasive.
Next, we need to surround our coastlines with sharknets. The
Children! Anti shark-net people are selling out the future.
|1.30.08 @ 4:12PM|#
Oh, Brian. I think there were some telecoms that refused to
participate in the program. Alltel, maybe?
Qwest for sure. I hadn't heard about Alltel.
Richard|1.30.08 @ 4:17PM|#
de stijl:
Right. QWest. (Must be the word "West." Westernerns are
libertarians.)
The three major perps, to my recollection, are Verizon, Bell South
and AT&T (using that trick new technology to keep all the
better tabs on us).
|1.30.08 @ 4:22PM|#
"Ronald Reagan kicks their butts with the "Bear in the Woods"
ad."
They should have responded with a "Pope Wearing a Funny Hat"
ad.
|1.30.08 @ 4:31PM|#
--Gilmore is right about this. We are effectively trading away
our civil liberties for...absolutely nothing.
--And Richard, I have my doubts about further large-scale terrorist
attacks on U.S. soil anytime soon, at least by Islamists. It seems
to me that al Qaeda has moved on from that approach and now is
focusing on acquiring power in Pakistan (which is certainly worth
worrying about). I can't base this on anything concrete, but it's
worth remembering that 9/11 was a massive failure for al Qaeda,
simply because it took a huge effort, did not result in the
hoped-for "Islamic awakening," and cost them their safe haven.
Contrary to the neocon spewings, Salafists aren't some sort of
turban-wearing sharks who kill for no reason. Their goal is Islamic
power. That's not to say that isolated Islamist nutjobs won't try
to attack U.S. targets, but I doubt they're capable of pulling off
major attacks and certainly don't require us to flush the
Constitution down the toilet.
One of the most insidious aspects of the entire FISA regime is that
no one outside a few people in the U.S. intelligence community
knows what is really happening. For all we know, such misuse of
intelligence capabilities has been going on for decades. Why should
we assume that previous administrations have been more observant of
our First and Fourth Amendment rights? I see no reason to believe
that.
Modern communications technology makes it easier for Uncle Sam to
spy on you, but what you do really think the NSA has been up to for
all these years. They have their own restricted freeway exit off
the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, ferchrissake! :)
Government secrecy is one of the biggest enemies of liberty, and no
amount of creative lawyering can change that.
Richard|1.30.08 @ 4:40PM|#
ChrisO:
Thanks for the analysis.
9/11 suceeded beyond Osama's wildest dreams, I think. I was
thinking about (but did not convey the idea) that a single small
attack -- killing a few people who thought they were safe -- would
give the fear-mongers even more license to usurp our rights.
Remember that two snipers virtually shut down metro-D.C.
People's fears are based on the consequences of a
terrorist act, not the remote probabilty of their being a victim of
one.
GILMORE|1.30.08 @ 4:51PM|#
Richard
9/11 suceeded beyond Osama's wildest dreams, I
think.
In a sense you and chrisO both are right.
Osama didnt get the play he'd thought as far as invigorating
arab-wide revolt...but the idea of 'poking the tiger with a stick',
and getting the US to overreact tremendously to our own
detriment...well that part he's cashed in on. Not in Afghanistan,
but in iraq. Bet he didnt see that coming.
|1.30.08 @ 5:19PM|#
"With the expiration date approaching, the Democrats proposed
another temporary extension, but the president said he'd veto any
bill that did not make the FISA amendments permanent and add
retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that had
collaborated in the administration's end run around the
statute."
Sounds good to me. Pass the bill and let him veto it.
|1.30.08 @ 5:24PM|#
getting the US to overreact tremendously to our own
detriment...well that part he's cashed in on.
Well, yes and no. Certainly much of the "domestic security"
dumbshow since 9/11 has been to our detriment, but I don't think it
has benefitted AQ or its fellow travellers on the Islamist fringe,
really.
|1.30.08 @ 5:41PM|#
I see nothing to turn back the tide of electronic surveillance.
The technology is getting better and cheaper. It's not a very
distant future where the cops can point a gunish looking device at
a crowd and record every person there. Thanks in part to your soon
to be RFID enabled drivers license. The same technology that stores
will use to inventory their shelves will one day inventory groups
of people. If you're not carrying your ID, the integrated advance
radar system will point you out and you will be arrested for having
no ID. The data collected, people, place, activity, and whatever
other data elements will be recorded in a database for future
reference. The kick is none of this is unconstitutional. A person
in a public place has no expectation of privacy, the same will not
be said about the public servant doing the public job at the public
location.
It should be known that the RFID technology is not the real
problem, it's the databases that will end privacy. As someone for
DHS was pitching a few weeks ago. There is a new definition of
privacy, it's about keeping your information secure. The days of
keeping your information to yourself is already mostly phased out.
Soon every little electronic transaction will be easily accessed by
LEO no warrant needed. It will be as simple as a Google
search.
The only presidental candidate that's concerned is called names and
only gets a few percent of the vote. America is ready for Big
Brother.
GILMORE|1.30.08 @ 5:48PM|#
R C Dean | January 30, 2008, 5:24pm | #
getting the US to overreact tremendously to our own
detriment...well that part he's cashed in on.
Well, yes and no. Certainly much of the "domestic security"
dumbshow since 9/11 has been to our detriment, but I don't think it
has benefitted AQ or its fellow travellers on the Islamist fringe,
really.
I dont disagree. But I wasnt talking about the domestic stuff, but
the international overreaction, and the negative impact on our
relationships with allies, as well as revealing the weakness in our
force projection approaches.
I mean, Iraq is a trillion $ down the tubes. FRom that POV alone,
yes it doesnt 'help' them, but has certainly caused us to hurt
ourselves.
|1.30.08 @ 5:49PM|#
"""Well, yes and no. Certainly much of the "domestic security"
dumbshow since 9/11 has been to our detriment, but I don't think it
has benefitted AQ or its fellow travellers on the Islamist fringe,
really."""
Depends on what you would say benefits AQ. If AQ wants to alienate
us from our freedoms and rights, then the dumbshow is working great
for them. They may not benefit personally, but we are moving closer
to their vision of America not the founding fathers. This is a win
for them.
|1.30.08 @ 5:51PM|#
9/11 suceeded beyond Osama's wildest dreams, I think. I was
thinking about (but did not convey the idea) that a single small
attack -- killing a few people who thought they were safe -- would
give the fear-mongers even more license to usurp our rights.
Remember that two snipers virtually shut down metro-D.C.
In a tactical sense, you could say the attack was wildly
successful. I don't think the original goal was to bring the
buildings down entirely. But in a strategic sense, I do believe
they were a failure. The "U.S. overreaction" theory is plausible, I
suppose, but probably presupposes knowledge of what was to come.
Heretofore, our reaction to al Qaeda provocations had been feeble,
and I suspect bin Laden believed that we would do more of the same
and be exposed as a Helpless Giant.
In that vein, the more straightforward explanation is that bin
Laden believed 9/11 would serve, among other things, as a rallying
cry for Muslims to throw off their secular "oppressors." Sounds a
bit naive, I guess, but he sees himself as a revolutionary. Later
attacks in Europe were clearly aimed at motivating European
Muslims, but those also don't seem to have had much success and
have dropped off.
Al Qaeda showed an opportunistic streak in creating an Iraqi group,
but I believe their main goal is taking over Pakistan. Who needs
suitcase nukes when you can get real ones?
Whatever the case, I don't see either party going to the trouble to
disassemble an overbearing security apparatus. If anything, their
pacifist facade and control of Congress makes the Democrats more
likely to be able to get away with expanding the FISA regime if
they win the White House.
|1.30.08 @ 5:52PM|#
"""I mean, Iraq is a trillion $ down the tubes. FRom that POV
alone, yes it doesnt 'help' them, but has certainly caused us to
hurt ourselves."""
And we are not done. My America's ready for Big Brother statment is
premature. But those who desire Big Brother and those do not, may
one day trigger another civil war. OBL would be pleased.
|1.30.08 @ 5:55PM|#
"""If anything, their pacifist facade and control of Congress
makes the Democrats more likely to be able to get away with
expanding the FISA regime if they win the White House."""
I agree.
My guess it that it will be something like, we can fix Social
Security and Medicare, but everyone will need these new hi-tech ID
cards.
|1.30.08 @ 5:58PM|#
Depends on what you would say benefits AQ. If AQ wants to
alienate us from our freedoms and rights, then the dumbshow is
working great for them. They may not benefit personally, but we are
moving closer to their vision of America not the founding fathers.
This is a win for them.
I don't think they really care much about subverting our form of
government. Their long-term objective is a pan-Islamic state. To
the degree that paranoia in the U.S. makes us less likely to
counter that objective, that's fine with them. But a more hardened,
authoritarian USA doesn't necessarily further that goal.
Lot of speculation on my part, I'll admit.
|1.30.08 @ 5:58PM|#
The only presidental candidate that's concerned is called
names and only gets a few percent of the vote.
A FEW percent? I wish!
|1.30.08 @ 6:00PM|#
Bin Laden spoke and wrote quite openly about his desire to get
us bogged down in an occupation, where we could be demoralized,
like the mujahadeen did in Afghanistan.
He didn't seem to envision that it would happen in Iraq,
though.
|1.30.08 @ 6:33PM|#
If you're not carrying your ID, the integrated advance radar
system will point you out and you will be arrested for having no
ID.
Well, they'll try.
Percy|1.30.08 @ 7:01PM|#
But those who desire Big Brother and those do not, may one
day trigger another civil war.
95% of the voting populace indicates that they want Big Brother,
only it has to be their Big Brother and not the other guys.
At this point its not whether we get Big Brother, its what party he
comes from. The electorate has almost zero-desire for a
non-authoritarian candidate. People want someone to protect them,
make sure their kids are safe, care for the old people, help sick
people, stop the foreigners, stop greedy corporations, and to
protect American businesses.
Americans have decided almost unanimously that they do not want to
do these things as individuals, they want to government to do it
for them. Welcome to the future of America.
GILMORE|1.30.08 @ 7:23PM|#
ChrisO | January 30, 2008, 5:58pm | #
Lot of speculation on my part, I'll admit
You should watch those "frontline: Al queda files" pieces
his intentions were pretty well documented. His primary motive was
to get the US to get out of saudi arabia, stop influencing the
region, and provoke revolt among the arab masses against both
secularist collaborative dictatorships like Egypt, Syria, the
monarchy in Saudi arabia, secular stalinist dictator in Iraq, etc,
and form some arab mono-nation that would crush israel and then...
something. I think crushing israel was as far as he got.
Anyhoo. That may just be what he said in his videos. Maybe he's
just a sulahaddin-reenactor, with a lot of friends who want to blow
themselves up for some reason.
|1.30.08 @ 10:57PM|#
His primary motive was to get the US to get out of saudi
arabia, stop influencing the region, and provoke revolt among the
arab masses against both secularist collaborative dictatorships
like Egypt, Syria, the monarchy in Saudi arabia, secular stalinist
dictator in Iraq, etc, and form some arab mono-nation that would
crush israel and then... something. I think crushing israel was as
far as he got.
I would say he's 0 for, what, 7? And the whole homeland security
fiasco in this country has neither helped nor hurt.
Bin Laden spoke and wrote quite openly about his desire to get
us bogged down in an occupation, where we could be demoralized,
like the mujahadeen did in Afghanistan.
This one has yet to be resolved, of course, but given the high
reenlistment rates among units serving in Iraq, the army certainly
isn't being demoralized by what his crew has been able to
accomplish.
MJ|1.31.08 @ 8:15AM|#
What do the people who are against this bill want to
happen?
The federal government effectively has an outstanding warrant to
monitor the communications of foreign nationals operating on
foreign soil. This has not been considered a violation of the
constitution. Do you want the government to have to take out a
warrant for every foreign national they wish to put under
surveillance? If so, does you want the government to have to take
out separate warrants for every person who communicates with the
one under surveillance. Is that a even a requirement for
wiretapping warrants in domestic criminal investigations?
Let's stipulate that the government is required to get a separate
warrent. How does that work? The government may have no idea who
the person on the other end of the line is and the only evidence
for justifying a warrent against them may be what's in the
communication being monitored. So the government has to monitor the
communication to find evidence to justify monitoring the
communication? How does that make sense? What is supposed to happen
when the government finds no evidence to justify a warrant? The
government agants cannot unhear/unsee the communication. Are they
supposed to be punished for this? How is that just? I really cannot
see how the FISA court proceedings can be for anything but for show
if the government is free to monitor the communications of
foreigners and foreign soil, as they have no control over who that
person is communicating with and where they are.
Again, what do you want to see happen?
|1.31.08 @ 9:34AM|#
They army's personnel are real pros, RC, and aren't about to
leave their comrades in the lurch, but the army was never his
target. Policymakers were his target. The American public is his
target.
And that's ten yards and loss of down for claiming the desire to
serve one's country as a vote for the Republican Party's foreign
policy platform.
|1.31.08 @ 11:49AM|#
"""What do the people who are against this bill want to
happen?"""
1. We expect the government to follow the Constitution.
2. If they say it's for foreign agents, it must exclude American
citizen.
3. If an American is involved, see #1
4. No mission creep. If it's for terrorism, then that's only where
it should be used.
Is asking the government to follow laws of the land too much?
I have no problem with the surveillance of foreign agents if it can
be done without spying on American citizens. If not, I expect the
government to follow the Constituition. Which most involved have
sworn to uphold. If they violate their oath or the Constitution, I
expect them to be punished.
MJ|1.31.08 @ 9:21PM|#
Except it is unclear that this is a constitutional
violation.
As far as I can see, an American citizen has no legitimate
expectation to not have communications with legal targets of
government surveillance monitored. The fact that you could not give
much of an answer to the practical problems of how to monitor
foriegn agents without monitoring their American contacts shows
that effect would be to make foreign surveillance impossible.
|2.1.08 @ 1:18PM|#
For someone who claims it's "unclear" you seem to argue "its
clear
It is possible. Once an American is discovered to be involved, they
just need to present this to a judge, which is usually a phone call
away. FISA allows you to spy while awaiting for the warrant
approval. The system to protect Americans was already in place,
albeit not a great one.
This administration wants, what was know prior to the American
Revolution as, "Writs of Assistance", which was a self written
warrant. There was NO third party involved. An agent of the British
government could write their own warrants as they desired. The 4th
amendment was intended to ban the use of self written warrant
|2.1.08 @ 1:31PM|#
"""As far as I can see, an American citizen has no legitimate
expectation to not have communications with legal targets of
government surveillance monitored."""
For example, A terrorist dials your number by accident. If the
terrorist is being watched, I'll agree they don't need a warrant to
cover the receiver of the call. However, the government doesn't
want it to stop their, They want the ability to now monitor your
phone calls without a warrant. Now that's a problem. If they wish
to extend the surveillance to your phone, they should get a
warrant.
The form of communication back in the early American days was by
paper. They had no idea that communications would be electronic.
But they did intend for you to keep your communications away from
government without a warrant.
|2.1.08 @ 1:33PM|#
"""The fact that you could not give much of an answer to the
practical problems of how to monitor foriegn agents without
monitoring their American contacts shows that effect would be to
make foreign surveillance impossible."""
I'm glad you think that the lack of me answering a question means
soooooo much.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245