Robert Wright of Yakima has a great letter to the editor in today's Seattle Times, on domestic surveillance (third one down, here). He writes:
I'm tired of "civil libertarians" fighting against my rights of safety and freedom...Do I really care if someone overhears a conversation between a family member and me? We might be strange, but we're honest. I want cameras on street corners that are linked to police databases...If listening to a phone conversation can lead to the foiling of a conspiracy, good! I'm safer now. When the American Civil Liberties Union fights issues like these, it is fighting to take away my right to be protected. Hey FBI, listen to me all you want!
We live in the most open society in the world, the most successful, and the most reviled, due to the envy and anger of 12th century fanatacists, assorted Euro-anarcho nut-jobs, and the anti-American agit-prop of our media elites. I'm perfectly at peace with whatever we have to do to protect our great country.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at February 09, 2006 09:56 AM | Email ThisRight........
Posted by: Jeremy on February 9, 2006 10:23 AMOh, you mean like in the Civil War, when the War Dept took control of all telegraph lines? Like in WWI, when Pres. Wilson ordered all international telegraphs to be intercepted and examined? Like in WWII, when FDR was doing stuff we still don't know about?
My grandfather was an immigrant, and he assumed that someone was always trying to listen in to every conversation he had, telephone or in person. A little paranoia is a healthy thing. I don't say anything that I don't want anyone to hear.
Posted by: Larry on February 9, 2006 10:28 AMHere is Ben's actual quote.
Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY, to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I would correct a couple of details in Roberts letter:
The NSA is not engaged in domestic wiretapping, it is not premitted to by law. I do hope there is an exception for tracking terror groups.
NSA is watching for communication from know terrorist associated phone number or voice (NSA use voice ID because the bad guys change phone number more often than I change underwear) calling into the US.
Now proper trade craft calls for the chain of phone calls.
Bad guy in Terrorstan call contact 1 in US with a coded message.
Contact 1 in US either out of greed or sympathies has agreed to pass a message for either money or ideology.
When the contact 1gets the message he calls another number, contact 2 and passes the message. His job is done, he tosses the cell phone.
Contact 2 passes the message to contact 3 who passes to contact 4 etc... up to contact 12.
Out of the 12 contacts only one is a real terrorist, 11 are simply message passes who may or may not really know what they are doing. How many people do you know would pass message for $1000 bucks no questions asked? We all know some one greedy and stupid enough for that job.
In order not to stand out the real terrorist is in the middle of the chain. Once he gets the call, he passes the message just like the rest.
You're monitoring the call from the bad guy to the US you notice 1 calls 2 calls 3 etc...
Who is the real bad guy?
Remember this is not a criminal case (you listening Ted the swimmer?)
This is intelligence gather in a WAR.
Unless you are passing a message for terroriost, the NSA is not going be listening to you.
Posted by: JCM on February 9, 2006 10:30 AMI am marginally in favor of Bush's wiretapping, seeming as how it does make sense to me that he should be able to intercept enemy transmissions, regardless of if they end up going to our side of the country or not.
But this 'I'm OK with the Government doing whatever it needs to do' is bull$#!t, and I'm surprised that any conservative would buy into it. They certainly wouldn't if Clinton was in office.
Good greif, this post signals every negative stereotype about us that liberals say (that said, I am well aware that the shoe would be on the other foot if it were Clinton and not Bush, they'd be all in favor), but that I didn't believe. Please, is anybody else going to agree with me here? Or are things really that bad?
Posted by: Cliff on February 9, 2006 10:38 AMCorrect, my point previously is the NSA program is not random domestic wiretapping.
It is targeted against enemy comms and enemy contacts. Determining enemy intentions is more that temporary safety, it is fundamental to long term victory and national security.
No, the government is not allowed to tap conversations of citizens just to see what they are talking about. That requires probable cause and a warrant. That should remain so and be vigorously defended as an essential liberty.
The media and democrats are at best mischaracterizing the program and at worst lying about to damage the President and our defensive capabilities.
Know this also, those in Congress yelling the loudest (Pelois and Reid) have been briefed regularly on the NSA program for the last 4 years. They had no beef until it became a political opportunity to damage the President. They are not concerned about civil liberties, if they were they would have gone public 4 years ago. Their motives are purely political, seeing a possible issue to use in the '06 election.
Posted by: JCM on February 9, 2006 11:08 AMBasically any peon in the OSE office can go after your phone records, bank records etc W/OUT CAUSE AND W/OUT going to a judge- simply because you have an employee who pays child support. In the case that this came to light on, the employee was not even behind in his payments.
It doesn't take much creativity to see the opportunity for abuse of this.
Posted by: Andy on February 9, 2006 11:26 AMThe current special access program deals more with areas where we are trying to find out if we should suspect a crime or a person(s), sufficient to warrant furhter monitoring. We don't have the translaters to "tap" all such calls, but we do have the desire to monitor call traffic and look for patterns that start with a call from a suspect foreign person or number.
You want to be able to monitor the call data, and see what followup calls or proceeding calls are/have been made to determine if the involved person(s) or number(s) may be worthy of more focused surveillance, such as a FISA warrant to tap all future calls and then process the collected data for translation and analysis.
We don't have the time, or the translators to listen to every call that comes from say the Yemen badlands or the Afghanistan/Pakistan autonomous region, but we can sort through call number records. If we see that a number in Yemen calls the US, we can sort both numer records in the past and future. If later on the Yemen number calls a bunch of pay phones in Afghanistan caves and the US number sets off a phone tree pattern of follow-up calls, that might give us reason to focus on the number(s) involved and if necessary, put forward a FISA warrant on a US person for further phone and other surveillance.
US Persons and Citizens as well as foreign nationals, routinely are subject to a loss of traditional fourth amendment protections when crossing the border into the US. It has long been permitted by the Constittution, so in some ways, this is a similar intrusion on communications that are entering the US. Not exactly established constitutuional precedent, but enough to say that Old Ben Franklin would probably be comfortable saying that these actions do not represent undue surrender of liberty.
Oh, and while Ben has a lot of neat sayings, we are a nation goverened by the people, under a contract set forth in the constitution, not a book of Ben Franklin quotations.
Posted by: Kevin on February 9, 2006 11:29 AMIn the current condition where uniformed armies are rarely contending, sophisticated and lavish intelligence gathering is the first line of defense against anonymous murderers. Despite the quavering of old yuppies who think that J Edgar Hoover is still prying into their sex lives, I want that intelligence gathering to be as widespread and flexible as can be. The Church Commission already did its best to hamper that capability on behalf of the progressives of the world, and Jamie Gorelick's wall made the situation worse. If anything, let the intelligence gathering be even more lavish.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on February 9, 2006 11:52 AMI am glad that JCM pointed out the key issue that needs to be debated.
The issue is.......does the US Government treat going after terrorists as a police investigation lead by the FBI or other government groups where the goal is conviction of someone in a court of law.....or....is this a military action.
I vote for treating terrorists as an organized, unregulated, stateless military action. Just as during WW-II when german spies and sabotours were landed on an Atlantic beach and then captured and executed by the military, I have few qualms in having the military or any other branch of government listening in on any radio, internet, telephone or other conversations that they believe are connected to a military related attack on the US.
If Al Quada kidnaps someone in Iran or Washington D. C. I don't want local police inspectors or FBI agents collecting evidence and working with attorneys on getting court orders to search for clues. I want a SEAL team to go in and kill terrorists and release the hostages.
The Clinton administration and Janet Reno messed up big time treating so many terrorist activities as "legal matters" and not as the military actions they really were.
As to Al Quada needing to be treated by the Geneva Conventions.......only if they wear uniforms, only if they have a state whose army there are part of and only if that state is a signature to the various convensions of war. I haven't seen any Al Quada executions or trails of those terrorists who beheaded civilians, journalists, & school girls walking to school; and until I see that our military should be able to shoot and kill at will as long as the believe they are fighting such terroristst. These terrorists should be treated like spies. Interogate them until they are of no value and then execute them.
This is war.
This is war.
This is war.
This is not a criminal police matter
Posted by: Bob on February 9, 2006 12:09 PMThis is yet another issue where libs, Dems, Progressives are tone deaf. But this is all good news because it distracts them from any substantive arguments against the right. And it keeps the spotlight on their core views of: 1) Hatred of the US even as it has been the most successful experiment in human history. And 2) hatred of Bush for any and everything regardless of any positive things he may have done.
Go Libs. Go Dems. Go Progressives. You make our jobs easy. Oh, and I see Gregoire has joined in making Bush sniping official business of WA state. Great, that too ought to be worth a few more percentage points in favor of Republicans in '06 and '08.
Goldy and ilk, keep it up, you are doing a fantastic job.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 9, 2006 12:18 PMI hear you. I think the difference is whether or not the monitoring is to protect the nation against its enemies (i.e. terrorists) vs. protecting individuals against the random criminal (i.e. the walking to the car from the theatre example).
I'm all in favor of the government doing whatever mettling in my business they feel is necessary to protect the nation from our enemies (i.e. terrorists), but I am not comfortable with government monitoring me or meddling in other ways to protect me from the bad guy lurking around the corner. It's not that I don't want protection from the bad guy, it's that I don't think the means justify the ends. I'm not interested in a "1984" type society where big brother is watching to ensure we're all "safe". The opportunity for abuse of that type of survelleince is too great.
The government provides police protection for indivual safety, and I don't think anything more needs to be added to that. Afterall, I'm a conservative, and conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Although it is impossible to protect oneself against all potential crimes, you can do things yourself to minimize the threat without the need for government to monitor your every move.
good advice. Now who the hell wishes *you* here?
Posted by: libertarianobserver on February 9, 2006 02:56 PMIf there was one iota of credible evidence that the domestic wiretapping, lengthy imprisonment of hundreds of foreigners without charges (let alone convictions), and torture had done a thing to protect our great country -- or could have protected us against 9/11, for that matter -- I would happily weigh that against the costs. But there isn't.
Posted by: Bruce on February 9, 2006 03:36 PMWhy isn't the media focusing on the fact that terrorists are planning with people inside our borders?
I predict that unless the large majority of peaceloving Muslims come out and not only denounce the violence, but lead the way in capturing the people responsible, then our world will shift irretrievably into a religious war that could kill billions. As more and more hate fill our airwaves, and come closer and closer to home, our hearts will harden to ALL Muslims simply out of fear. I hope and pray that it doesn't come to that, but I see it happening in little ways already.
And lastly, did I read an article correctly? Did anyone else read about the protest in Afghanistan by women and college students about our being there? What is going through their minds? If we weren't there, the women wouldn't be allowed on the streets and the college kids would probably be shot.
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on February 9, 2006 03:47 PMTry knowing what you are talking about before you make yourself out to be the ass you clearly are. Don't assume you know people just so you can beat up your straw man to make your point.
Posted by: Cliff on February 9, 2006 05:58 PMI am not for war, but fighting a half-assed war is more than just a waste of resources. We also must tighten the borders, otherwise the mission will not be accomplished, not a threat, just a promise..
Posted by: KS on February 9, 2006 09:34 PMAnd no, I don't want to allow Congress, judges, etc., the ability to know our immediate defense/offense. Quite frankly, they have not shown themselves able to keep a secret. And we all know that politics can't keep it's nose out of anything.
Posted by: April Coggins on February 9, 2006 10:02 PMHappyGoLucky, did you call me an idiot because that was the best way you could think of to persuade me or anyone else of anything, or just because it makes you feel good? Have a nice day.
Posted by: Bruce on February 10, 2006 12:08 AMAmen. Would "appropriate oversight" possibly include the legal process that Congress established for precisely this purpose? The one that lets the President get a wiretap warrant from a special court in the Pentagon that's open 24/7, and even lets him wiretap first if necessary and then request a warrant afterward? Or does "appropriate oversight" mean "no oversight"? That's the whole issue here -- no one is arguing against wiretaps, just against illegal ones.
Posted by: Bruce on February 10, 2006 12:15 AMWould the the Congressional Intellegence Committe, and House and Senate leadership constitute "appropriate oversight?"
You see they have been briefed in detail on the NSA intelligence gathering operations since the beginning, as required by law. That includes Pelosi and Reid.
Pelosi and Reid have signed off on this program for 4 years.
Give me one rational reason why those two and the other democrats on Intelligence Committe would sign off on this program for 4 years without a peep. And suddendly now (with midterm election 8 months away) the NSA program is a grave threat to our civil liberties?
Posted by: JCM on February 10, 2006 07:15 AMHere, I can do the same kind of thing with your post: "HappyGoLucky writes:" What are you thinking? I WROTE it, I wasn't writing it when you responded. Is your reality so warped that time slips back on itself?
See how easy it is to do?
Now, if you want to discuss---well, I'm not going to, not with you. Your reality IS warped if you believe what you WROTE in your first post up above.
As for branding you an idiot---it felt good. Could you really believe it was anything more than an obvious call regarding your post? I wasn't trying to persuade you of anything, nor will I waste any more time on you.
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on February 10, 2006 08:20 AMLet me ask you and your fellow ACLU's
When the Clintons had FBI files on other people, where were you? When travel gate happened, where were you? When Clinton used the IRS & FBI to go after people and news orgs he didn't like WHERE WERE YOU!
You may wish to read more about what FDR did during WWII.
Funny how your fellow ACLU's seem to have a hearing & seeing problem when the LIB's are in power.
You guys crack me up....
Posted by: Unkl Witz on February 10, 2006 09:25 AMGiven the known (not democrap talking points) parameters of the NSA program, Congressional signoff for 4 years and the other points posted here, what law exactly is being broken?
Other than public display of BDS.
Posted by: JCM on February 10, 2006 10:00 AMNo, "appropriate oversight" in the USA means getting a warrant, and there is a special national security court that operates 24/7 for just this purpose. As for Pelosi, I guess you missed the report last month that on Oct 11, 2001, after being briefed on the spying, she wrote a classified letter to the director of national security expressing her doubts as to the program's legality.
Posted by: Bruce on February 10, 2006 10:25 AMThe NSA program is intelligence gathering against enemy combatants, command and control, and the contacts they make in the US.
Do you understand the difference? (apparently not)
Ted Kennedy voiced the the dems position a couple of days ago. That is "wiretapping" might "endanger "prosecution."
This is war, we'd better stop them BEFORE the "crime" is committed.
OK when Clinton or some peon in DSHS does it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nice try Wizzy. I don't remember these women or news paper threating to kill Clinton or harm the US.
You answered my question just the way I figured you would. Let's not talk about that Billy boy was using the FBI & IRS to go after Americans.
Remember Clinton was used the NSA too.
Your going to have to try harder next time.