Via ThinkProgress, Joe Lieberman is using the small-bore terrorist plots in the UK as a rationale for more domestic spying. Never mind that the plots that were stopped were snuffed out via old-fashioned police work. He wants to "end the partisanship" and get both parties to endorse greater government wiretapping powers, and he wants cameras on every corrner:
The Brits have got something smart going in England and it was part of, I believe, why they were able to so quickly apprehend suspects in the terrorist acts over the weekend. And that is they have cameras all over London and other of their major cities. We've got some in NY, we've got an extensive program beginning in Chicago. I think it's just common sense to do that here much more widely. And of course we can do it without compromising anybody's real privacy.
Well, that's good. But the U.K.'s got more surveillance cameras per person than country in the world and it's not helping them prevent terrorist attacks. It's helping them mop up the damage afterwards and chase down the perps. We don't have nearly as many cameras as the U.K., and yet we've had no terrorist attacks since 9/11. Thus, we need more surveillance cameras.
This is about the security of our country and our people with an enemy that is prepared to attack us again and again here at home.
Lieberman must think a victory in Iraq would do nothing to retard or halt terrorists' penetration inside this country—we're still in Iraq because we can't let them "follow us home," remember? So his arguments boil down:
1)We must stay in Iraq to defeat the terrorists.
2)We must empower our law enforcement to spy on/defeat the terrorists.
3)That ain't gonna stop the terrorists.
If the most dangerous place in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and a camera, the most dangerous job is laundering Joe Lieberman's perpetually damp bedsheets.