Wiretapping Update
Just a short roundup today of some wiretapping news items... as always, in the three-dot style of the late great Herb Caen...
...The New York Times has a piece this week on exactly why letting the government powers that stretch the Fourth Amendment beyond recognition is always a bad idea -- because what is introduced as "emergency, extraordinary" powers always devolves in the blink of an eye into just a standard tool for law enforcement (to use for whatever reason they see fit). National Security Letters (or, in the original Louis XVI French, lettres de cachet) are an outright insult to the Constitution and should be stopped. I'm still waiting for a hard promise from either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama that this practice will end, on Day One. Or for that matter, a speech in the Senate right now from either of them. They're running to be leader of our country, so how about showing some leadership when it counts?
...Wired magazine has a good rundown of the debate on the wiretapping bill currently before the House of Representatives. I have to say, House Democrats have been showing a remarkable amount of spine this week, when most pundits (even ones sympathetic to the cause) were predicting they'd roll over and do whatever Bush told them to do, without delay. Needless to say, this is a trend which should be encouraged. Read the statement [PDF] from House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) if you'd like to see such spinal growth in action.
...The always indefatigable Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com has probably been following the ins and outs of this story closer than anyone else online. Today's installment is well worth reading, especially since the vote will likely come tomorrow. He also has an excellent example of backbone stiffening, from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in the form of a YouTube video.
...That's it for now, sorry for such a short column, but it's been a busy week.
-- Chris Weigant
And once again, I ask the same age old, yet unanswered question...
Would you allow the US Government to listen in on your call to your Aunt Matilda about her brownie recipe if it means it COULD prevent a nuclear cloud over LA or NY???
It's also somewhat ironic (not to mention hypocritical) that the House, who is advocating openness and freedom, has decided to debate this matter BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC...
This is a gross departure from the norm and seems to belay the Dems cry of transparency in government...
Imagine that. The Dems, who are fighting their own government over the secrecy surrounding MUCH NEEDED tools to combat terrorism, and they (the Dems) ***INSIST*** on doing it in a closed secret session...
Kinda puts a crimp in their "The Public Has A Right To Know" mantra, eh???
Michale.....
Michale -
Read the Glenn Greenwald bit. Although three weeks ago, it was indeed the Democrats who closed the session, this time around it was none other than the GOP. I actually don't have a problem with it -- if they are truly debating national secrets, then as long as I can read the bill when they're done, I don't mind if they debate for a while behind closed doors.
-CW
Hi again, Michale. It's been a while. I've missed the tussle, but have been much more productive at work.
But I can't help but ask, would you end our constitutional democracy just to gain evidence on a criminal?
Dave
Reframing Hypotheticals Since 1998
@CW
I would think ANY secrecy would be anathema to the premise that the Dems are putting forth.
Or, are the Dems (and you) conceding the point that SOME secrecy is required to prosecute the war against terrorism??
If the answer is yes and the only point of contention is "how much" secrecy, shouldn't that determination be left in the hands of those who have the most knowledge of the circumstances??
@akadjian
Hay again!! :D Glad to see you amongst the land of the living. :D
would you end our constitutional democracy
I see no end to the constitutional democracy. Do you?? The US Constitution is NOT a suicide pact that must be followed into annihilation.. Can you not see that???
just to gain evidence on a criminal?
Depends... What's the crime?? Is it the murder and untold suffering of MILLIONS of innocent men, women and children??
I am truly sorry, but I cannot see ANYONE stacking up that consequence against the government listening in on your conversation with Aunt Matilda regarding her corn puff recipe...
Your argument is akin to the argument about police officers carrying guns.
To whit.. Only about 4% (1990s stats, being the last time I officially carried a gun and a badge) of LEOs use their weapon in the performance of their duties.. Since it is so rare, YOUR argument is that we shouldn't allow cops to carry guns, as their use to perform the LEOs duties are, statistically, insignificant..
On the other hand, common sense dictates that it is INFINITELY better for an LEO to have a weapon and not need it, rather than have a need for a weapon and not have it. Surely you can see the inherent logic of such an argument.
The situation with the FISA debate is eerily similiar.. Surely it is better to HAVE the ability to listen into terrorist's conversations legally and quickly, rather than have the NEED to do so, but not be able to legally do so...
It boils down to the simple yet, again, unanswered question.... Why would ANYONE want to give ANY benefit or advantage to terrorists???
Or is it that the left doesn't believe terrorism is a threat anymore??
Michale......
"Would you allow the US Government to listen in on your call to your Aunt Matilda about her brownie recipe if it means it COULD prevent a nuclear cloud over LA or NY???"
Nice straw man you got going there. Lets rephrase it a bit and see if it still sounds as innocent: Would you allow your political/business opponent to listen in on a call dealing with strategy on gaining office/making a huge business deal to the detriment of said opponent if it COULD but probably would not prevent a nuclear cloud over LA or NY???
The U.S. Constitution is a document that has kept our country from becoming a dictatorship since shortly after our country was founded. We didn't want any more kings.
That's a good one about "suicide pact," though. I miss the days when conservatives defended the Constitution. Remember when they wanted to get rid of judges who didn't abide by the Constitution?
* sigh * The good old days.
I do think it's time for a new national security policy. Aren't you tired of being afraid? Of living in constant fear? Especially when the government keeps fueling the fear?
Wouldn't it be nice if there was just silence from the political parties for a while and everyone just sat down together and focused on something ... like, idunno, the economy.
- D
The U.S. Constitution is a document that has kept our country from becoming a dictatorship since shortly after our country was founded. We didn't want any more kings.
And we don't have any kinds. The checks and balances are working as intended.. But, as I asked CW above, shouldn't these kinds of matters be left in the hands of the people who have the MOST information??
That's a good one about "suicide pact," though.
Tom Clany's EXECUTIVE ORDERS... :D Good book. You should read it, if you haven't already. It illustrates how a government SHOULD work...
Aren't you tired of being afraid? Of living in constant fear?
Once again, you confuse prudence with fear... It's not fear that motivates most people, as much as the Left would like to paint it that way.
When you try and use the "fear" argument, you are in effect using the "Don't worry, Be happy" argument. And such an argument WILL work.. Right up until the time you are dead...
Whether the Left wants to admit it or not,
The threat is real. I repeat, the threat is real"
-UNDER SIEGE
Do you know how many real terrorist attacks were averted since 9/11?? Hundreds... And all because of good intel.. And, having been involved in the process a while ago, I can assure you that good intel does not grow on trees. You can't just run out to the Quickie Mart and pick up a package of Good Intel. It takes good men doing not so good things...
Wouldn't it be nice if there was just silence from the political parties for a while and everyone just sat down together and focused on something … like, idunno, the economy.
While I agree that silence from the Political Parties would be a joyful thing, I submit that ALL concerns are secondary to terrorism.. We, as individuals, can survive a bad economy, we can survive a bad President {cough} Clinton {cough} Carter {cough}.
But we cannot survive a "Don't worry, Be happy" outlook on terrorism..
Michale.....
From the AP wire today:
"The president's main objection is that the bill does not protect from lawsuits telecommunications companies that allowed the government to eavesdrop on their customers without permission from a court after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/ap_on_go_co/terrorist_surveillance
Seems to me like it's more about executive power and protecting corporations and the President who broke the law.
I know, I know. You'll either say this is about the "liberal media" or they had to break the law to fight the terrorists. Bullcrap. The President could have done the same thing legally through a "secret court" w/o aiding the terrorists.
The thing that I think is most amazing, however, is that I think the American public and Congress is finally getting fed up with hearing "terror, terror, terror" but seeing no evidence, no evidence, no evidence.
So keep playing the terror card, conservatives. It's been so overplayed that pretty soon no one will believe it.
- Dave
BTW - Tom Clancy not equal to evidence. Last time I checked, his books were filed under Fiction in the Library.
Seems to me like it's more about executive power and protecting corporations and the President who broke the law.
That's because you are looking at it thru a Bush Bashing jaded eye..
What someone who is objective (like me) sees is that the President wants to make sure that the corporations will continue to be in a position to help fight terrorism..
You can't ask someone to do the right thing to protect innocent lives and then throw them in jail (or sue them for millions) when they do it. My previous analogy to CW about his daredevil and death defying pursuit illustrates the utter folly of such an attitude...
I know, I know. You'll either say this is about the "liberal media" or they had to break the law to fight the terrorists. Bullcrap. The President could have done the same thing legally through a "secret court" w/o aiding the terrorists.
Bullcrap.. You can't do this kind of surveillance by committee.. Using your example, every military command should have to go thru a civilian oversight agency to dismiss the troops for chow.. These types of CT ops require freedom to prosecute. By the time FISA is informed and brought up to speed, the opportunity is lost. Not to mention the leaks that would be generated..
No.. The ONLY way it can work is if we give our intelligence apparatus the freedom to do what needs to be done, at the moment it needs to be done.. It's why we elect LEADERS to make these decisions.. Just because YOUR chosen one was made president, doesn't mean you should hamper the activities of the current president..
The thing that I think is most amazing, however, is that I think the American public and Congress is finally getting fed up with hearing "terror, terror, terror" but seeing no evidence, no evidence, no evidence.
Yer kidding, right???
• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.
• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking "dirty bomb," convicted of conspiracy.
• September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.
• May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with trying to topple the Brooklyn Bridge.
• June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.
• August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).
• Click here to view photos.
• August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.
• August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.
• June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.
• August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.
• December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up refinery in Wyoming, convicted of providing material support to terrorists.
• February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.
• April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.
• June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.
• July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to hit New York City train tunnels.
• August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.
• May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey.
• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries underneath JFK Airport in New York.
• March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.
And that's just what the public has been allowed to learn.. For every ONE act listed above, you can bet there are a half dozen that we will never know about..
Again, you seem to operate under the DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY premise.. But, look at the stakes.. If I am wrong, some poor schmo's Aunt Matilda will be overheard saying how much her corns hurt... (Oh the horror!!!)
But, if YOU are wrong, hundreds of thousands (or more) innocent people could die...
Surely you can see what the lesser of two evils would be, no??
BTW - Tom Clancy not equal to evidence. Last time I checked, his books were filed under Fiction in the Library.
It wasn't submitted as evidence. It was submitted as an example of THE RIGHT THING TO DO..
Something the Left doesn't seem to care much about...
Michale.....
As liberal as I am, this is one area where I and the Left part ways...
The Left is oh so worried and concerned about the rights of terrorists..
Me?? I just want to kill them...
Michale.....
Wow. Where do you get this stuff? The left is concerned about the "rights of terrorists". Hahaha.
Straight out of the branding book. Why don't you just call me a communist next?
This is great stuff for separating us, but the truth is no one believes in the rights of terrorists. C'mon. I know you're trying very hard to make your case, but puh-leez, it's just insulting. No one believes in helping terrorists. No one.
If you can't stick to the issues, there's no point in talking.
As far as evidence, I still haven't seen any evidence that a bill that does both, protects our security and our rights, cannot be accomplished.
Why won't conservative leaders pass a balanced bill? Could it be because they are more interested in playing politics than actually going after terrorists?
Do you believe that electable leaders should be above the law? And if so, how would we guarantee that they don't abuse this privilege? Trust them?
It's not a partisan argument. Think about it this way, what if a Democratic President were in power? What if this President were unscrupulous and spied on Republicans for political advantage?
My big question is, why can't Republicans work with Democrats to pass a bill that both protects our safety and our rights?
It seems completely doable. Why won't Republicans work with Democrats to craft legislation that does both? (I believe I know why, but I'm honestly interested in what you think.)
Cheers
Dave
I just had an interesting thought. Because I fully believe that if you and I sat down, Michale, we could work out something that would work for both of us.
The trouble with Washington is that the 2 sides get to playing politics. And somehow we get caught up in it.
If you're willing, I'd like to propose an experiment. It's just a hypothetical case, but might be interesting.
Let's say it's the two of us who have to work this out. Forget about Congress and FISA and Protect America, etc.
Now what we both know is that each of us has one thing that we must have:
1) you - effective security measures
2) me - protect our Constitutional rights
The only thing we both know is if we can't agree, there's no deal.
So, in this negotiation, taking into account your experience, my first question to you would be, what are effective security measures? What is it that you want from this negotiation?
From my perspective, I can tell you that I want to protect our Constitutional rights.
@BashiBazouk
Would you allow your political/business opponent to listen in on a call dealing with strategy on gaining office/making a huge business deal to the detriment of said opponent if it
So, you are saying that you have PROOF that the Administration has done this???
Near as I can recall, the only political entity accused of doing this is the Democrats...
I am not talking about flights of fancy.. I am talking about in the hear and now..
Using your argument, we shouldn't give guns to cops because ONE of them MIGHT be a psycho and MIGHT go shoot a bunch of innocent people...
You can "MIGHT" this and "MAYBE" that all day long.. But let's deal with the reality of terrorism, shall we??
COULD but probably would not prevent a nuclear cloud over LA or NY???
Site your source for this statement.
@akadjian
Straight out of the branding book. Why don't you just call me a communist next?
Why?? Are you???
This is great stuff for separating us, but the truth is no one believes in the rights of terrorists.
Really?? So all of the Left Wing hullaballoo about Gitmo was my imagination??? Tell me another one...
. No one believes in helping terrorists. No one.
And yet Democrats go out of their way to do just that.. Oh, I am sure it's not intentional... But the result is the same. By weakening the intelligence capabilities of the US, that is EXACTLY what the Democrats are doing. Assisting the terrorists..
Why won't conservative leaders pass a balanced bill?
And what would such a bill look like??
And WHY on earth would you want to balance a terrorist's right to privacy with the safety and survival of innocent Americans???
My big question is, why can't Republicans work with Democrats to pass a bill that both protects our safety and our rights?
That was exactly what was being put forth. But the Democrats would have none of that because they wanted to score political points...
You still have yet to explain what rights you have lost.. The fact is, you haven't lost ANY rights at all..
The FISA bill was directed at TERRORIST COMMUNICATIONS that happened to come into or go thru the UNITED STATES...
So, you will forgive me if I say that anyone who is against the new FISA provisions have the terrorist's interests at heart over the safety and security of Americans.. The only OTHER explanation is that the Democrats are merely using the FISA to score political points..
Which is it???
Why won't Republicans work with Democrats to craft legislation that does both?
Why won't Democrats work with Republicans to craft the legislation??
Simple. Because it's an election year and BOTH sides are more interested in scoring political points than in protecting the American people..
But, hay.. We don't need politicians..
You tell me. In YOUR opinion, what would protect the rights of Americans, but still allow us to aggressively prosecute the war against terrorism???
Reading your next message... ESP!!! :D
OK, here is what is needed. The ability to LEGALLY and INSTANTANEOUSLY intercept and monitor communications OUTBOUND from known terrorist communication channels **REGARDLESS OF WHERE THOSE COMMUNICATIONS END UP OR WHO THE END UP TO**..
That is why FISA needs changed.. Because the way it is now, as SOON as it is detected that the communication path way is either going TO or THRU the US, ALL monitoring must cease. That is how valuable intel is lost..
So, tell me.. What is wrong with what I propose?? (Which is, coincidentally enough, what the President is proposing..)
I would sincerely like to hear your constitutional argument.. :D
Michale.....
Michale...
First off, do you actually think that any group sophisticated enough to procure uranium, build a nuclear device and most importantly smuggle it in to the US would use anything other that the most secure and encrypted communication methods?
Data mining all US communications: phone, email, snail, IM, whatever can be easily defeated with a little understanding of computers and cryptography. I would put finding a plot to nuke a city with the wiretaps we are talking about here a distant second to an asteroid destroying most if not all life on earth. In other words it is such a remote chance that it is hardly worth tossing out the rule of law over.
As for my modification of your straw man argument, you mentioned the Administration and brought in the democrats, not me. So I hope you will pardon me if I do not feel the need to provide "PROOF" for a argument I did not make. What I was trying to point out is that not all communication is as innocent as a brownie recipe and those in power have shown a tendency to abuse said power. Nixon is the person that I think of first when the subject of illegal wiretaps comes up but I'm sure Democrats have done the same and Greens, libertarians, independents and possibly even Ralph Nader would be tempted if they ever got to that level of political power.
I do not think terrorism is a big enough threat to ignore the rule of law. Something as dangerous as W.W.II maybe, but even there most of questionable and at times unconstitutional domestic actions were gross over reaction that did not stop the enemy but hurt otherwise law abiding American citizens. I see you posted a long list of terrorist plots that have been found since 911. Please tell me how many of those plots were found out by illegally fishing compared to normal legal antiterrorism methods?
What neither you nor the Administration has convinced me of is that fighting terrorism by ignoring the constitution is any more effective than doing it with legal means. I can understand the need to monitor communications, what I don't see is why it can't be done with court orders and independent oversight. It’s this reluctance for such things I find very disturbing about the current Administration.
"Using your argument, we shouldn't give guns to cops because ONE of them MIGHT be a psycho and MIGHT go shoot a bunch of innocent people…"
No, using my argument cops should have training and guidelines on how and where guns should be used and situations where they are used should be investigated to see if they were used properly. Kind of how they already do it in real life...
Hey Michale,
"Because it's an election year and BOTH sides are more interested in scoring political points than in protecting the American people."
Hahahah. Couldn't agree more. Laughing because otherwise I'd be crying.
"OK, here is what is needed. The ability to LEGALLY and INSTANTANEOUSLY intercept and monitor communications OUTBOUND from known terrorist communication channels"
When you say "instantaneously," do you mean a day, a week, an hour, or right now?
I'm just trying to make sure I understand better. If instantaneously means right now and there is valid evidence that instantaneous is what is needed (which I question, but we're just talking hypothetical here), then I'd suggest setting up a 24x7 judicial review process that requests get attention immediately.
If there's demonstrated need, I think this could be done.
My position is just that if there's going to be a solution, there have to be safeguards to make sure it's not abused. Like Nixon, for example. Trust alone is not enough. And again, I'd say the same thing about a Democrat as a Republican. I trust them all equally little.
So let's just say for the sake of discussion that we, as Congress, can find the money and resources for a 24x7 judicial review process capable of authorizing requests instantly, would this address your security concerns?
I'd be onboard as long as we could make sure it was independent and run by the judiciary and we could find the hypothetical money :).
@BashiBazouk
Interesting point. I should have thought about encryption. If I wanted to send something to someone w/o it being monitored, there's plenty of freeware encryption programs out there that would make data mining totally useless. Kind of makes you wonder about the importance of the program when it can be so easily defeated. That's one of the reasons I really question it as anything but a political bludgeon and why it would be really nice to hear from a non-partisan security expert.
The other thing that I've heard is that data mining works best when there are identifiable patterns. Take credit card theft, for example. Thieves who steal credit cards tend to buy large items that they can then resell. This sets off a red flag that's detectable. But terrorists do not operate in patterns. So there's an extremely high number of false positives that pull resources away from any real work.
Dave
@BashiBazouk
First off, do you actually think that any group sophisticated enough to procure uranium, build a nuclear device and most importantly smuggle it in to the US would use anything other that the most secure and encrypted communication methods?
So, because it might be difficult to do, are you proposing that we shouldn't even TRY??
Besides terrorists, while not exactly STOOPID, are not the sharpest tools in the shed. They believe that they are god's chosen so much that they overlook details that would be obvious to others..
Finally, look at Eliot Spitzer. He's the guy who WROTE THE LAWS on wire-tapping and such. And HE got caught by his own laws...
Don't mistake expertise in one area (nuclear fission) translates into expertise in ALL areas...
Terrorists, by definition, have a few screws loose to begin with... It's not too difficult to exploit their stupidity, if one has the will to follow thru...
Data mining all US communications: phone, email, snail, IM, whatever can be easily defeated with a little understanding of computers and cryptography. I would put finding a plot to nuke a city with the wiretaps we are talking about here a distant second to an asteroid destroying most if not all life on earth. In other words it is such a remote chance that it is hardly worth tossing out the rule of law over.
And what do you base that assertion on?? I don't mean to be snooty here, but I have over a quarter century in Security & Law Enforcement including more than a decade with Military Intelligence within TWO Branches of the US Armed Forces.. And I would NEVER make an assessment such as that because such an assessment is virtually impossible to support.
When you are dealing with people's lives, counted in the hundreds and thousands, you always want to err on the side of actually SAVING those lives...
Wouldn't you agree???
I do not think terrorism is a big enough threat to ignore the rule of law.
Well, (A) terrorism IS a big enough threat and (2) the "rule of law" is always being modified to take into account current circumstances.. One only has to look at the ever-changing drug laws of the late 60s to know this is true...
I see you posted a long list of terrorist plots that have been found since 911. Please tell me how many of those plots were found out by illegally fishing compared to normal legal antiterrorism methods?
The majority of the plots involved what would be considered "illegal" activities here in the states. The British Airlines plot involved torture of a captured Al Qaeda operative by the Pakistanis that result in information being fed to British MI6 that, in turn, resulted in the capture of the terrorists plotting the dirty deed. The Fort Dix incident was discovered with surveillance that is "illegal" under the current FISA laws, because such surveillance against Americans are illegal.. Many of the plots were discovered by wiretaps that are illegal under the "must'nt listen in on Americans" provision of the FISA statutes...
The simple fact is, the threat is real, regardless of your belief that "I do not think terrorism is a big enough threat"...
by ignoring the constitution is any more effective than doing it with legal means
You do realize that within the US Constitution itself are the provisions to suspend it, right??
Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for AMERICANS and also jailed anyone who spoke against his war proclamations... This country survived...
FDR incarcerated AMERICAN CITIZENS for the sole "crime" of their ancestry and this country survived..
What makes you think the current state of affairs is any different???
@akadjian
What you are asking for is instantaneous oversight..
And the ONLY way to have that is by having judges and their administrative entourage accompany Covert Teams into the field...
Surely you see the utter foolishness of such an endeavor...
Look, we entrust our operatives.. They have been trained extensively in ALL aspects of their job description and then we send them out to protect our borders and our people..
Now, what you are proposing is that we send them out, but with the instructions, "DON'T TAKE ANY ACTION UNTIL YOU CAN CLEAR IT WITH A POLITICAL COMMITTEE THAT WILL PROBABLY HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA"...
Is that what you really are proposing???
OK.. Fine.. Let's do it your way.. We'll set up an oversight committee for EVERY covert op that we send out.. Now, you and I both know that ANY bi-partisan committee will inevitably have a political agenda... The ONLY way to ensure that there ISN'T a political agenda is to have a committee formed from within the ranks of the covert operation.. And, judging from what you are proposing, you don't want that.. You want an objective committee that can deal with the issue impartially...
And I can promise you that such an operation is IMPOSSIBLE...
And here is why...
To be effective, said "committee" must have complete and thorough knowledge of the operation and the circumstances.. And, once that knowledge is imparted, ANY objectivity is out the window... Could YOU be objective if you learned that the potential target is PROVEN to have murdered hundreds of innocent men, women and children in cold blood?? I highly doubt it...
The simple fact is, our CT operations must have INSTANTANEOUS clearance to perform their duties.. This is the nature of Counter Terrorist Operations in this day and age...
Anything less and our CT ops officers might as well stay home in bed... And leave this country wide open to attack...
This is the nature of how we live in the here and now... Ignoring it won't change it.. Discussing it in committee won't change it.. The only thing that COULD change it is aggressive response to it...
Michale.....
Interesting, Michale. Basically, what it sounds like is that you're not willing to negotiate. Or am I wrong? Do you have any options that would both protect our rights and provide this instantaneous access?
I believe that if there was the political will and there was a proven benefit, we could accomplish something. It doesn't have to be impossible.
But I really wouldn't advocate that the Democrats negotiate. Why? Because their position is stronger. They should use it to their advantage.
Here's how. In negotiations, you should always consider your BATNA. This is the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. Basically, this is what will happen if the negotiation breaks down.
With FISA renewal, here is what would happen, the Republicans would scream that the Democrats are weak. Does this sound familiar?
Note to Democrats, Republicans are screaming this now and they will continue to scream this no matter what you do. Even if you pass their bill.
In fact if you pass their bill, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, you give them more ammunition for their argument that Democrats are weak and spineless.
So there is no benefit to negotiating with them. Let the bill expire. I wouldn't even go as far as they already have to try and find a compromise. Bring the hammer and not the dove. And pay no attention to the screaming. After a while, you just get used to it.
Best
Dave
Do you have any options that would both protect our rights and provide this instantaneous access?
The current proposal already protects the rights of Americans. At least, Americans who are not taking calls or getting emails from terrorists..
Do you propose that those Americans who are working with terrorists should have privacy to do so??
To the best of my understanding the bill has already been passed. And Bush is going to VETO it. And you know who will get blamed if there is another terrorist attack on US Soil??
The Democrats..
And rightly so....
Doing the FISA half-assed like the Dems want is like doing a partial circumcision..
"You either go all the way or fucking forget it!"
-Robin Williams
But to answer your question, no.. I simply cannot, in good conscience, negotiate to a position that gives the advantages to terrorists and terrorism..
I am funny like that...
I honestly do not see what all the hullaballoo is about.. If an American citizen is not cavorting with Terrorists, then they have nothing to worry about.
If they are, then I don't give a rat's ass what is done to them, as they deserve all of it and more...
I do pride myself on trying to be objective about things and see issues from all perspectives..
But, I readily concede that my objectivity breaks down where terrorists are concerned...
"Forgive me, T'Lar. My logic falters . . . where my son is concerned."
-Sarek Of Vulcan
Michale.....
Michale,
First off:
"I don't mean to be snooty here, but I have over a quarter century in Security & Law Enforcement including more than a decade with Military Intelligence within TWO Branches of the US Armed Forces.."
This I just have to discount out of hand. It's the internet. No verification is possible and the expert trump card too easily played. Maybe you are, maybe you are not but for the sake of argument I have to ignore it...
I'm not saying terrorism is not a threat. I'm saying it is not as big a threat you seem to think. 100,000? Where do you get a figure that high? All the plots you listed above if all succeeded would still only account for the high hundreds/low thousands of deaths over five years. A few of those plots were impracticable and one admitted so by the terrorists themselves.
Of the two you specifically mentioned in response, the Fort Dix plot was found by the plotters having video transferred to DVD "that showed the men firing assault weapons, calling for jihad and yelling "God is great" in Arabic". The clerk notified police and the police notified the FBI. This is perfectly legal for fighting kiddy porn so I don't see why is would be illegal for fighting terrorism. And even if it is not legal it still has nothing to do with illegal wiretaps...
Now the British airlines plot is interesting and I personally will reserve judgment until after the trial. It could prove your point quite well as if successful it would kill lots of people/taken down many aircraft. It could also go completely the other way and be a key example how torture is unreliable. There is a good chance the Pakistani told, while under the duress of torture, of a half baked plot he had heard of while in england and the British authorities ran with it for political points even though it was unlikely. That one could go either way and at this point I would say it's 50/50 as there is just not enough information out there on it and what is there conflicts. But regardless of how it goes, it would still not address the need for illegal wiretapping.
What I am trying to do is separate run of the mill terrorism from nuclear terrorism. I see the run of the mill and something that needs to be fought but not dangerous enough to commit questionable acts and loose face to the world community over. It's not in the same ballpark as W.W.II it's T-ball in comparison to the big leagues.
Nuclear terrorism though possible is improbable. Episodes of 24 and Tom Clancy novels make for good fiction but the reality is closer to to many other threats of similar probability: Asteroid hitting the earth, bird flu, known nuclear power launching an attack. Possible but low enough chance not to get fixated on a single one of them to ignore the others...
Exactly my point, Michale. The right wing is going to blame Democrats for terrorism no matter what. In fact, I'm kind of surprised that they haven't already labeled them terrorists and tried to go after them. I suppose this is the next step.
*sigh*
So I don't see any benefit for them in negotiating with Republicans.
A) It's a ton of money spent wastefully when it's not effective and can be defeated by anyone who takes 5 minutes to download encryption software.
B) It is ripe for abuse ala Nixon.
and
C) Republicans plan on blaming Democrats no matter what
So I'd rather see them put up a fight for our Constitution instead of cave to fear. It will only give them credibility.
- Dave
@BashiBazouk
This I just have to discount out of hand. It's the internet. No verification is possible and the expert trump card too easily played. Maybe you are, maybe you are not but for the sake of argument I have to ignore it…
Let's be accurate here, shall we? It's not for the sake of THE argument.. It's for the sake of YOUR argument...
In other words, you are saying, "If what you say is true, then it completely and logically negates my entire argument which is based on ignorance. Therefore, for the sake of my argument, I MUST assume you are lying.."
I'm saying it is not as big a threat you seem to think
And I'll ask again. What do you base that assessment on?? My assertion is based on over a quarter century in the field of Security & Law Enforcement with special emphasis of CT ops...
Put another way.. If you have Bill Gates & Joe The Barber (whose never even TOUCHED a computer) giving you an assessment on the intricacies of computer operations, who would you give more credence to??
Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with not knowing everything...
"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
-Subcommander Tal, THE ENTERPRISE INCIDENT
But what IS wrong is making assessments such as this with no applicable experience.. Granted, your sway over national security within this blog is probably nil :D But the problem I have is that there are people like you who ARE ignorant of the real threat and ARE in a position to make policy and who ARE going to get hundreds of thousands of innocent American men, women and children killed..
Nuclear terrorism though possible is improbable.
Again, I have to ask you.. What experience do you have that allows you to make such an assessment??
Or, more accurately... What experience or expertise do you have that would allow anyone to take what you say seriously??
I have stated my bona fides. Simply because you choose to ignore them because they totally negate your argument is fine. But it is not reality..
@akadjian
Exactly my point, Michale. The right wing is going to blame Democrats for terrorism no matter what. In fact, I'm kind of surprised that they haven't already labeled them terrorists and tried to go after them. I suppose this is the next step.
The GOP has it's own problems. They have played the terrorist card so much, it's almost as tiresome as the Dems playing the race card..
I am not talking about the GOP blaming the Democrats for terrorism.. I am talking about, if there is another 9/11 style attack on US soil, it will be the general public who will blame the Democrats for terrorism..
And rightly so...
So I'd rather see them put up a fight for our Constitution instead of cave to fear. It will only give them credibility.
Credibility that won't mean diddley squat if yer dead...
Michale.....
Michale,
"I have stated my bona fides. Simply because you choose to ignore them because they totally negate your argument is fine. But it is not reality.."
Chest thumping at who's more in the know does not an argument make. It neither negates nor proves anything. Sure you very well could be Mister ex Military intelligence with ties to those currently in the know coming to a random board of interest to tell the lesser folk how it *Really* is, nudge nudge wink wink. On the other hand you could be a tinfoil hatter with delusions of grandeur and a penchant for for political dialogue. I by definition can not know the truth of such things and therefore choose to disregard them. Especially when your argument, what little there is, completely hinges on my believing your bona fides.
"And I'll ask again. What do you base that assessment on??"
Well, for starters that long list of foiled terror plots you copied verbatim off the fox web site. Looked at each case, made an assessment. But then we've already been there in a previous post.
As for defeating data mining. Limited code systems. Each operative has a few dozen paragraphs that are triggered by variations in the background noise of the internet. Could be chosen words in Nigerian 419 scam emails or slight differences in colors in individual pixels in images on random websites. As long as it's kept simple and the variation key is unique to each operative, it's unbreakable. But then this is basic cryptography 101.
Stating ones bona fides is different from knowing the truth of ones bona fides. I would think ex intelligence person would get that. As far as yours go, you do toss out a forceful but not very convincing argument. Most of the questions I have asked you have responded with either a question of your own, a "tell me how it is" line without anything to back it up or a demand for my bona fides to be in the argument at all. The one case you directly answered my question half of it is obviously false. The Fort Dix plot was well covered by the media and had nothing to do with illegal wiretaps. The other half is about illegal torture not illegal wiretaps and very well may end up being a key example how torture is unreliable. Not exactly a shining example Socratic Wit.
Nice try though...
Actually, if you look at the title of this commentary, it says, "Wiretapping Update"..
It seems kind of disingenuous of you to slam me for commenting on Illegal Wiretaps when that IS the discussion...
As to your entire argument, it could be summed up thusly..
"I by definition can not know the truth of such things and therefore choose to disregard them."
Why bother even participating in the discussion, if you are going to disregard reality??
The simple fact is, you have nothing but your own un-informed opinion to rely on. And I, because I can draw on years of experience and expertise, KNOW for an absolute fact that it (your opinion) is uninformed..
I guess that sums things up quit nicely..
You "think" I am wrong..
I, on the other hand, know for a fact that you are... :D
Michale.....
Is that it?
A couple of petty jabs and a juicy Ad hominem.
Excellent!
What do you expect when your entire argument consists of
"Your expertise and experience totally negates my argument, so therefore I will simply choose to ignore the reality and call you a liar."
If you want a substantial counter-argument, surely you can see the need to provide an actual and substantial argument rather than a simple, crude and out-of-line personal attack...
No???
Michale.....