Trying to have any kind of a conversation with a liberal over the revelation today that a government insider informed ABC News reporters that the government was “tracking” their phone numbers is an absolute impossibility. They are in hysterics. They are bursting blood vessels, trying to outdo each other in coming up with adjectives to describe their outrage. Or, taking an opposite tack, they are assuring us that they knew it all along – Bush=Hitler.
They may be right.
Then again, they may be full of crap. The fact is, WE DON’T KNOW. And I know how hard it is for the lefties to admit to those three little words but if they were actually serious about discussing the limits of federal power (as I will attempt to do in this post), they would admit the following:
1. WE DON”T KNOW many of the technical details of any of the NSA programs revealed to date.
2. WE DON’T KNOW if any of those programs are illegal or violate the Constitution. We can guess. We can extrapolate from known facts. But until the actual details of HOW the programs work are released, only fools, little children, and liberals proclaim them to be beyond the pale.
3. WE DON’T KNOW if these latest revelations are true.
4. WE DON’T KNOW if legal warrants were obtained in furtherance of an investigation into the leaking of classified information. Not “politically embarrassing or “anti-Bush” information but classified information. You can spin it all you want to my lefty friends, but there are statutes on the books about giving that information to anyone – including reporters – with stiff penalties involved including jail time.
ABC’s outing of the names of the east European countries where the CIA’s prisons were located did so little damage to Bush politically but hugely damaged our foreign policy in ways that are shocking to contemplate. So much for the idiocy that going after the leakers in this case was due to the embarrassment caused the Administration. The reason for the leak is because some unelected, self-important lickspittle of a bureaucrat disagreed with the policy . It’s not about embarrassment or revenge; it’s about catching a criminal.
And anyone who can’t tell the difference between leaking parts of an NIE (that were in the process of being declassified anyway) and leaking information that causes enormous problems to allies who went way out on a limb to help us in fighting the War on Terror, is an ignoramus.
All this being said, what they hell is the government doing “tracking” the calls of newspeople?
The MSM will scream long and loud about this one, but let’s keep things in perspective. Under existing federal statutes, intelligence officials who divulge sensitive information to the press are likely in violation of the law. The unauthorized leak of such data results in a referral from the intelligence agency to the Justice Department, which launches a criminal probe. Federal prosecutors then have the right to gather and subpoena evidence in support of that effort, including phone records. If authorities discover a series of calls between the office phone or cell phone of an intelligence officer and Brian Ross of ABC News, well, that could certainly be relevant in identifying and prosecuting leakers.
But the phone records of reporters are protected:
In New York Times Co. v. Gonzales, 382 F.Supp.2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), the New York Times sought a declaratory judgment to protect the telephone records of two of its reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon. Miller and Shenon had written articles in the aftermath of September 11th detailing how the government planned to block assets and search the offices of two Islamic charities.Patrick Fitzgerald wanted to know who leaked this information. He argued that Miller and Shenon’s reporting tipped off the charities to the searches and increased the likelihood that evidence and assets were destroyed or concealed. As part of his investigation into the leak, he requested that Miller and Shenon voluntarily produce their phone records. They refused and eventually filed the lawsuit to determine whether their phone records were protected.
Judge Sweet ruled that indeed the phone records in that case were “protected by the qualified reporters’ privilege for confidential sources, which exists pursuant to the First Amendment and federal common law.” The government in that case was unable to overcome that privilege, so it could not have access to the phone records.
Does this mean that their phone conversations are protected? Their “phone records” (which should include telephone numbers of the type stored in the NSA telephone surveillance database)? Or is it monitoring of a sort of which we are currently unaware?
WE DON’T KNOW.
And neither does ABC News:
ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.
In short, the tens of thousands of words already written by lefty bloggers (and righties who have felt compelled to respond) may be a big waste of time.
ALL OF THIS MAY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NSA!
If it is a legal, authorized monitoring by the Department of Justice that is part of an ongoing criminal investigation into the illegal leaking of classified data, then no one has anything much to complain about.
However…
If it is an attempt by the Bush Administration to use the tools of data mining and the extraordinarily powerful technical collection apparatus of the NSA to spy on reporters (and political opponents), I daresay that the President would be in danger from many Republicans of having them fulfill the wildest dreams of the netnuts and agitate for his impeachment and removal from office.
Myself included.
There are limits to the power of the Federal government. There must be. “We are at war” may cover many, many situations that the civil liberty absolutists and Bush deranged leftists may find problematic but can be justified under the general rubric of “national security.” But using that excuse to harass journalists or intimidate political opponents is so far beyond the pale, so UNAMERICAN that I feel a little embarrassed even having to mention it. It should be as “self evident” as the truths found in the Declaration of Independence – that we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; none of these is possible without some guarantee that opposition to government policies will not lead to retaliation by the government itself.
This is not to say that I as an individual American citizen can’t call you a traitor or a treasonous lout if I disagree with you (something I rarely do). But it does mean that simply opposing government policies or trying to report what a journalist sees as the “truth” (subjective though that may be) should not bring the heavy hand of government down on the critic or the newsperson.
And if this is what the Bush Administration has been up to with the various NSA programs then the President will be able to look fondly back on the day when his support was in the low 30’s. And he will have presided over a political debacle as horrendous as the elections of 1974-76 when the Democratic congressional “Watergate babies” – all 72 of them – rolled into Congress and nearly destroyed the country.
There is no reason to call for an investigation – yet. But I am a little more amendable to Arlen Specter’s ideas about finding out some additional details on these programs including the Senator trying to get a better idea of exactly who they are targeting.
In the meantime, some words of wisdom from Josh Marshall:
I think part of the issue for many people on the administration’s various forms of surveillance is not just that some of activities seem to be illegal or unconstitutional on their face. I think many people are probably willing to be open-minded, for better or worse, on pushing the constitutional envelope. But given the people in charge of the executive branch today, you just can’t have any confidence that these tools will be restricted to targeting terrorists. Start grabbing up phone records to data-mine for terrorists and then the tools are just too tempting for your leak investigations. Once you do that, why not just keep an eye on your critics too? After all, they’re the ones most likely to get the leaks, right? So, same difference. The folks around the president don’t recognize any real distinctions among those they consider enemies. So we’d be foolish to think they wouldn’t bring these tools to bear on all of them. Once you set aside the law as your guide for action and view the president’s will as a source of legitimacy in itself, then everything becomes possible and justifiable.
I would take issue with Mr. Marshall’s blanket characterization of “the folks around the President” not recognizing any distinctions “among those they consider enemies.” But otherwise, his analysis should be taken to heart.
Just what are they up to?
UPDATE
Glad to see I’m not the only one on the right troubled by this.
This doesn’t change my stand on the surveillance program or the phone database. It may (MAY, I stress) be an abuse of an otherwise useful tool. It’s important to note that we don’t have any proof for Ross’s allegations.
Nevertheless, I get the point – if the phone database is used to root out sources, there may be a chilling effect in that sources may not be willing to talk. Leave aside for the moment the arguments about whether they should talk about classified info as often as they do…it’s important that the government not descend into Nixonian paranoia…
I’m troubled by the allegation, and I’m troubled by the leaks, and I’m troubled by just about everything associated with this entire subject. More than ever, I stand by my call for a new regulatory surveillance framework…
UPDATE II
Here is a rather cryptic update from ABC News:
The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters’ phone records in leak investigations.“It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration,†said a senior federal official.
The acknowledgement followed our blotter item that ABC News reporters had been warned by a federal source that the government knew who we were calling.
The official said our blotter item was wrong to suggest that ABC News phone calls were being “tracked.â€
“Think of it more as backtracking,†said a senior federal official.
“Backtracking” would seem to indicate something much less intrusive and less alarming; they would already have a suspect’s phone records that showed the ABC News phone number.
The FBI released a statement that sort of confirms that:
In a statement, the FBI press office said its leak investigations begin with the examination of government phone records.“The FBI will take logical investigative steps to determine if a criminal act was committed by a government employee by the unauthorized release of classified information,†the statement said.
Officials say that means that phone records of reporters will be sought if government records are not sufficient.
In short, the government is not specifically targeting news organizations unless they have probable cause gleaned through a legal search of a suspect’s phone records. That would seem to be pretty standard law enforcement practice and no cause for alarm.
Then again, still, WE DON’T KNOW.
9:32 pm
Do we know? Why do we need to know? If no legal action is brought depending on warrantless search, where’s the abuse? If no intimidation or illegal suppression of dissent can be prooven in a Court, where’s the abuse?
10:41 pm
“Maybe if we ignore it, Big Brother won’t be there…”
That’s what I imagine some of our esteemed patriots on the right side of the fence are thinking upon the reporting of the huge story that the Bush White House is listening to re
11:20 pm
“ABC’s outing of the names of the east European countries where the CIA’s prisons were located did so little damage to Bush politically but hugely damaged our foreign policy in ways that are shocking to contemplate.”
I see that you don’t claim it damaged national security.
It wasn’t the leak that damaged our foreign policy – it was what we were DOING that damaged us, when the world found out. But it didn’t harm national security.
2:41 am
Late Night Line, May 16
Pajamasista Rattler Gator is in his element in Florida with “Alligator Safety Tips.” Forward to everyone you know in Florida. If in Florida, print out and slap it on the refrigerator. 25,270,000,000 Pages and 10 Things You Might Not Know…
7:36 am
Spook 86: Skip the DOJ invetigation, they just pass now.
The movie used a voice and keyword analyzer to monitor calls that went through satellites. It is just as easy to monitor all calls this way. Everyone is monitored, but not analyzed by a CIA analyst, unless the computer begins to monitor or Valerie Plame does not like somebody.
7:37 am
“It wasn’t the leak that damaged our foreign policy – it was what we were DOING that damaged us, when the world found out. But it didn’t harm national security.”
Whew! That’s some serious spin. But completely wrong, and typical of the “blame America first” crowd.
8:11 am
So, boiled down, this is likely, although not proven, to be a case of normal law enforcement utilization of phone records to solve an alleged crime. So, there would be warrants in this case, correct? Are those warrants secret?
If so, was the warning to ABC from a “senior administration official” yet another crime?
8:36 am
I think it really comes down to this: the Bush administration has no credibility with liberals, democrats, many independents, and, apparently, some republicans. Therefore, those on the left simply don;t trust them, and expect them to lie. Therefore, their assurances that they would not abuse this program fall on pretty much deaf ears. To those on the right, the president is doing what’s right to protect us, and he is given the benefit of the doubt. There is a major credibility gap. The right thinks the left is anti american, and the left thinks that we will already be living in a totalitarian state by the time the right realizes what is, to the left, obviously happening in slow motion now. Not sure how to bridge this gap.
8:49 am
The “moonbats” are going into hysterics because no one else seems to care and someone has to. Where are the libertarians? Where are the voices of the small government conservatives? You say “we don’t know” several times and, to some extent that’s ok as there’s lots of things I don’t know and don’t need to. BUT there also is no oversight or accountability and “We don’t know + No one ever has to justify it” is a serious problem in a free society with constitutional protections.
9:02 am
I really don’t understand why the president, the NSA, and the FBI need a free pass on this one and I REALLY don’t understand why Presidential apologists dont understand this issue.
Can we or can we not freely communicate with the press? What level of accountability is there in the government if no one can find out what is happening? I dont know that the abuses to date really add up to a Stalinist state, but there are some concerning trends…like unlimited detentions without access to lawyers, like torture, renditions, and a very very high level of secrecy.
To execute this plan, the government must control the press, lest its plans be made public. Some of the things listed above are unpopular, and I would argue, RIGHTLY SO.
The presidential apologists must remember that the Repulbicans are not garaunteed another win on 2008. You will not feel the same way when Hillary is president (intentionally said because of your collective hate of Hillary). You don’t WANT to give that level of secrecy to the government, the NSA, The President.
You may all collectively love W. I don’t. But the reason for my concern about giving the government this much power and sercrecy FAR EXCEEDS my dislike of this particular president. I would like to see a good progressive candidate. I know most here disagree. I dont care. But, I would not want said progressive candidate to HAVE THIS KIND OF POWER. It is a formula for abuse.
Whether or not that abuse is occurring now is certainly cause for debate. But you only get to debate it BECAUSE YOU F*ING KNOW ABOUT IT. To attack the press, to make it harder for them to find out about these things makes for an unaccountable system.
The people who are “traitors” are the ones risking their careers to bring up some alarming trends, and dangerous ones at that. You think they do this because they are commies? Better for them to stay silent all the time? Your ASKING for trouble, you are ASKING for abuse.
I am not saying this will happen, so be kind RWN, but what level are you willing to have everyone stay silent about? Mass deportation of all Muslims? Mass deportation of all Brown people? More survelliance of Brown people? Extra judicial executions of suspected terrorists? Mass execution?
Well, if the administration has its way on this, even if they dont do it (which of course they won’t), we just wouldnt know it would we?
for all the talk I hear on RWN about “accountability”, they dont seem to want to apply that to the government. They “trust” Bush so much that they are willing to give him free reign to do whatever to whoever to make sure that he takes care of our “terrorist problem”.
Its one of these “sounded like a good idea at the time” moments.
Foston
9:12 am
In America, press reports on goverment, In Soviet Russia, Goverments reports you!
9:16 am
Before commenting, I wish everyone would read the update from ABC news last night.
This story is nothing. It is bullshit. It is ABC trying to play up being an aggreived party when it is clear that the FBI - NOT NSA, NOT THE CIA - is looking at the phone records in connection with a legitmate criminal inquiry into the leaking of classified information.
Get it through your thick heads, moonbats. You are making yourself look like total idiots over nothing.
9:16 am
So what’s the big deal here.
You can obtain anybody’s phone call records by sending a phone number in an e-mail with credit card number to charge and a few hours later, you got ‘em.
9:17 am
This country was built on a series of checks and balances. And when no one but the President knows what’s going on, when we remove those checks and balances, then the entire system comes crashing down.
If that’s not the definition of “unamerican” I don’t know what is.
9:18 am
That’s why we need to have open and full hearings. Without them we may only assume the worst of this administration, which has earned our distrust.
9:42 am
I honestly think this is one of the issues we should all be agreeing on. Conservatives and Progressives, Hawks and doves, should all agree that unchecked governmental power is not a good thing. It is a tinderbox of abuse ready to be lit. Just because Conservatives REALLY trust Bush to do the right thing, does not mean that we the people should not be engaged in the discussion about what is right and what is wrong. Governments should never be given this level of power and secrecy. NEVER.
Foston
9:58 am
Rick Moran Said:
9:16 am
“the FBI - NOT NSA, NOT THE CIA - is looking at the phone records in connection with a legitmate criminal inquiry into the leaking of classified information.”
Information the FBI gets is put into a big database that can be accessed by the NSA and CIA. The NSA collecting phone records is nothing compaired to what they can get with National Security Letters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html
10:22 am
Foston,
You are a cafeteria Constitutionalist. You claim to want transparency, where the elected officials can not use the agency for nefarious political ends, yet are happy to allow said unelected agency personnel to use the agency for nefarious political ends. Neither the policy makers nor the personnel in the agencies should use the auspices of the agency for partisan gain. The editors in the press have an obligation to require leakers to seek whistle blower protocols first before they publish incomplete information. You run a greater risk of out of control government when the protocols of protection are ignored.
10:28 am
The moonbats apparently think they will never be given power again. Because the scorched earth approach to politics they have made the SOP will be replicated if that should ever happen and it will be ‘their President’ that is assumed to be a liar no matter the issue and no matter the evidence.
But I think they may be right – they will probably never be given power again so they lose nothing with the constant hyperventilating.
10:51 am
Remember that everything that is being done now will be relied upon as justification for actions taken by the next Democrat sitting in the Whitehouse…...
10:54 am
Here’s a little language from the WAPO piece on Mary McCarthy:
“McCarthy was not an ideologue, her friends say, but at some point fell into a camp of CIA officers who felt that the Bush administration’s venture into Iraq had dangerously diverted U.S. counterterrorism policy.”
Just how orgainzed was that little “Camp”? What if there’s evidence of a conspiracy, involving the press, and the FBI is investigating? Why would they need the NSA? Why not just go to the court for a warrant? I would guess the FBI does it everyday.
Maybe this new “leak” over the NSA was just a way of muddying the waters for a legitimate FBI investigation involving an organized conspiracy to leak highly classified information. If that’s the case, all I can say is, it’s about time.
And I’m getting tired of progressives “bitching” over “Bush as Big Brother”—without any evidence that the constitution, or anyone’s privacy is being violated. THe only people who should be having this discussion are those of us who protested the Clinton White House illegally having 900 confidential FBI files on site. And who went to jail over that?
11:04 am
You are so right on with this post. We don’t know. But all the Liberals just assume THEY have all the answers. I’m getting tired of all the rumor and speculation.
Thank you for this post. I absolutely love your blog.
11:13 am
FBI, CIA, NSA, it’s all just one big happy family under the new intelligence patriarch, John “Iran-Contra” Negroponte. Considering his role in that affair, it’s only prudent to view the current revelations about domestic surveillance with some alarm. Arkin just put up a list at the WaPo of 500 datamining programs currently in use by our government. I don’t care who’s in office, I don’t want our government abridging our privacy in this manner. In the absence of convicted criminal conduct, I don’t think commercial databasers should be allowed to collect it either. The complilation of a complete dossier of every single US resident strikes me as decidely un-American. What is freedom, if not the right to live one’s life without constant surveillance?
And whether the ABC revelations are real cause for concern or not, it just goes to illustrate only one of the possible abuses this database lends itself to. If you wait until the day the government sends in their health police to round up all the diabetics who eat too much sugar and puts them in “health camps” for their own good, it will be too late.
Yes Rick, we don’t KNOW for sure. But I have to ask, how are we supposed to find out if this administration or some future one is up to no good? Somehow I don’t think they’ll have an attack of conscience and confess.
11:37 am
“And whether the ABC revelations are real cause for concern or not, it just goes to illustrate only one of the possible abuses this database lends itself to. If you wait until the day the government sends in their health police to round up all the diabetics who eat too much sugar and puts them in “health camps†for their own good, it will be too late.”
Yep! What goes around comes around. Suppose that the next government uses the database to round up the Kool-Aid addicts and send them to detox…
11:45 am
The point is not that since we don’t know, we shouldn’t worry. That is an ignorant position to take. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The point is that since we don’t know, we SHOULD be worried. The fact the administration has gone out of it’s way to avoid any kind of judicial oversight of it’s activities should have anyone concerned with freedom in America extremely worried regardless of whether or not the administration did anything wrong. I’m frankly shocked that so many on the right seem to be willing to accept this possible attack on our civil liberties just on the word of someone in government. I know this will come as a shock to some people on the right but those on the left do support these programs AS LONG AS THERE IS OVERSIGHT. Do any of you have any kind of conception of the kind of power our government has over our lives? The idea of letting government act in this fashion without oversight is ridiculous.
11:52 am
Is it so difficult to recall that these NSA PROGRAMS ARE SECRET? What the heck does that have to do with “ignorance?”
Your platitudes are ridiculous. Which is why even though the Republicans are in the process of self-destructing, it will be a miracle of the Democrats win in November.
Platitudes will not keep us safe. And until the left acknowledges that we are at war – I mean really and truly comes out and says that this is how we intend to keep Americans safe – no one will want to be governed by the left’s favorite device – empty, stupid platitudes.
11:54 am
DALLAS, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Let the bastards get a warrant if they want to spy on me. If they can’t live within the law, they should be prosecuted. It’s really so simple even the mouthbreathers should be able to grasp the concept.
12:24 pm
Speculation is valid.
First we are told that no calls are being investigated without a warrant, then no domestic calls are being investigated without a warrant, now the story is that ALL calls are being logged and no one needs a warrant. This trail of lies indicates that the administration KNOWS this is wrong—otherwise, why lie about it? Since not even the Congress has been allowed the facts, speculation is all any of us outside the administration have—and they are not going to investigate themselves.
At the very least: a pattern of lies points to some kind of guilt; a pattern of unwillingness to abide by the Constitituion shows tendency toward totalitarianism. Some may trust Bush will be a benevolent dictator, but they should realize that by dismissing the Constitution he’s opened the door for someone else to do worse—someone who may not like you, or just may not care if your life is destroyed in their progress to more power.
Let’s get back to conservative priniciples: less government, not more.
12:53 pm
Rick Moran said “And until the left acknowledges that we are at war – I mean really and truly comes out and says that this is how we intend to keep Americans safe – no one will want to be governed by the left’s favorite device – empty, stupid platitudes.”
This is a typical line of reasoning used by the remaining die-hard Bush supporters. I for one don’t feel safer knowing that the government has unlimited power to violate my constitutional rights. You’re appealing to cowardice, plain and simple. Is it worth it to surrender our rights over the the very slim chance that we may become victims of a terrorist attack? I don’t think so. You right wingers act all big and tough, but you’re wussies. Hell, we had enough intel to foil the 911 attack, and if Richard Clark hadn’t been demoted, we probably would have.
1:12 pm
Brave Heart,
Spoken like a true Six Sigma 20/20 hindsight cafeteria Constitutionalist!
1:46 pm
I have always believed that we do not always know what our government is doing. Lately is seems that the left is just angry THEY do not know everything.
It is irresponsible to assume that we would be “safe” if everybody knew everything. We are part of a large world not just the USA.
Besides, if you have a social security number, the government already knows about you. You cannot expect that our government will protect you only when it is convienent for you.
Security is a full time operation. If you owned a large corparation you would use the best technology available to help you compete in the market and not worry about feel-good junk.
You can disagree about his policy or his decisions, but he is the President of the United States and in a time of grave threats against our society, he must be allowed to use all the tools available to him to protect us.
I wonder, would the left make this same fuss if a Democrat was in office? A serious report of the true nature of this policy should be made. But, we cannot seek to endanger our own country.
2:16 pm
This post repeats over and over again that we do not know what information the government is actually collecting, under what auspices or to what end. Yet it goes on to say that no investigation is currently necessary. Please explain to me how we are ever going to know what the administration is up to if we don’t establish some mechanism to uncover this information. I agree that we don’t know, but we should. And I do not trust this administration to be honest about their activities. Launch an investigation. Tell the American people for certain what information is being collected and to what end so that WE DO KNOW, and then let people decide whether or not they are comfortable with the program. We will never know by looking the other way.
2:25 pm
First of all, this story has nothing to do with the NSA surveillance programs. ABC’s attempt to generate scare headlines by telling everyone that the FBI is investigating lawbreaking (read the update to the ABC story on their own website) is a shockingly shameless use of their trust as a major media outlet.
As far as investigations, no one has said anything about informing the intel committees in Congress. They seem to be up to speed on most aspects of the programs. Even the Democrats on those committees are NOT saying they are illegal or that they should be stopped. The only people who are saying that are those who know precious little more about the TECHNICAL ASPECTS of the program – how the data is collected, how is it collated, who if anyone sees it – than you or I. I listen to Jane Harmon who has been upset that some details weren’t shared with the entire committees but has otherwise supported the programs.
Perhaps a better system for informing Congress can be developed. But the idea that there is no oversight is just plain wrong.
4:01 pm
Did Bill Clinton get the “WE DON’T KNOW” benefit of the doubt? I don’t remember it that way, but maybe I am remembering wrong.
4:05 pm
No he did not, and you will remember the ‘liberal media’ ripped him to shreds
4:38 pm
Forget about Arlen Spector’s help. He just caved and allowed the White House to avoid judicial review by FISA on the legality of the NSA program.
I’d also ask what difference does it make if the surveillance of ABC is being done by NSA or the FBI , using NSLs under the Patriot Act? It all part and parcel of these programs that are supposed to be used to, as you put it, protect us against terrorism. If our government considers journalists to be a terrorist threat then I’d say we’re in deep trouble no matter which agency is involved.
You’ll never see the big picture Rick, if you insist on examining just one piece of the puzzle and declare it to be meaningless.
4:41 pm
In the Eye of the Beholder…
We may not have hard evidence—yet—but the circumstantial evidence that domestic survelliance is much broader than we dared dread, is becoming rather substantial. It would be folly to ignore it.
12:30 am
I’m very curious as to why the Right in this country supports such a dangerous legal precedent.
If the NSA, or any other agency, wants to investigate a leak and use phone records in the process, that’s fine, all by itself. Get a bloody warrant. Regarding the GWOT and all of the other WOX (War On X=Whatevers), investigations are fine, but please get a warrant. Warrants are what allow some modicum of oversight. Does the Right in this country really want to throw oversight overboard?
I know that right now it is inconcieveable to the Right, but at some point there will be an administration in this country that does not belong to the Bush family. There might be a Democratic administration, or a Purple Party administration, or whatever, in the relatively near future. The precedent that the Bush administration is establishing will afford future adiministrations the same luxury to spy on anybody, anytime, anywhere, with or without a reason, or, at the very least, any oversight and subsequent accountability.
I’m all for promoting the security of America, but the assumption that expanded powers will not be abused, if allowed to go unchecked, by this or future governments is just stupid. That’s right, stupid. All that (most) on the left and in the center (and a few on the Right) are demanding is a shred of oversight and accountability. Why does the right hate accountability?
What do you think Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, et al would think of a Hillary Clinton administration (not that I care much for HRC, but it is a very real possibility that she might be our next president) tapping their every conversation?
I’m hoping that some good right-wingers reply to this posting. Honestly, I want to understand why the right thinks that demolishing government transparency in a democracy, demolishing oversight of individuals and agencies in our government, and demolishing general accountability should be discarded. If they honestly believe these things, then the terrorist have gotten far more than they ever bargained for.
I fear for America. Prove me wrong.
8:40 am
Yeah, boy, some day there will be another Clinton-esque Administration, and all we’ll have to worry about is mis-use of FBI records and the selling of nuclear secrets to China. Whhoo-eee, just like the good ole days.
I don’t understand how anyone can say there has been no oversight of these NSA programs. Frankly, you have to have your head buried somewhere deep in your posterior to not have seen, over and over, the reports that these programs have been vetted by the DoJ, and have been presented to Congressional leaders since their inception. Reports indicate that there were areas of concern from both, and those concerns were addressed.
But still we hear the hysterical shriekings about this “dangerous abuse of power.” Is it a dangerous abuse of power when I am stopped at a sobriety checkpoint? Well, in my opinion, yes. But when I object, all I hear is “it’s for the public good, and the ends justify the means,” or “you’re on a public road, and the cost of using the public road is increased scrutiny.” Ok, then, you’re making phone calls using public utilities. Don’t the ends justify the means when you have to pay for that with increased scrutiny? For crying out loud, if the gov’t wanted to they could collect all of your garbage from the curb and sift through it looking for whatever they want. I also find it intersting that opponents of the most recent program insist on calling it wire-tapping, when it is clearly nothing of the sort. A more correct analogy would be the gov’t collecting phone bills from your curbside trash can, although even then your phone bill contains far more personal data than this program reportedly collects.
Like I said here before: if you don’t want your communications tracked, then collect a whole lot of soup cans and twine and build your own communications network, and for heavens sake, don’t use a cell phone. If you don’t want to be tracked, analyzed, and have your behavioral data sliced and diced every way imagineable, cut up your credit cards and don’t leave the house.
8:05 pm
I wonder if conservatives would be so willing to support this program if the Democrats were in control. This war on terrorism is not very well defined, and could very well outlast the current President. In addition, it is not inconceivable that a Democrat might take over the precidency in 2008. Do you really want to hand over the powers of this President to a liberal?
Every time I hear about Guantanamo I think about Clinton and the Federal Case he had wiped from the books. The case where a Federal judge ruled that “Guantanamo Bay is under the ‘complete jurisdiction and control’ of the United States, prisoners there had to be accorded certain fundamental constitutional rights.” I did not protest Clintons actions at the time, I trusted at least Congress or the Courts would step in and make sure that things didn’t get out of hand. My problem was that I didn’t look to the future. I didn’t consider that perhaps a government that I don’t agree with would come to power. I think conservatives need to think about that, especially considering the recent poll numbers. George Bush won reelection by the slimmest majority (2.5%) of any sitting president, the closest previous margin was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004).
1:41 am
DaveG,
“Yeah, boy, some day there will be another Clinton-esque Administration, and all we’ll have to worry about is mis-use of FBI records and the selling of nuclear secrets to China. Whhoo-eee, just like the good ole days.”
– I will not defend the missteps of individuals associated with the Clinton Administration. Do you support the missteps of the Bush Administration; do you allow extra leeway for the Bush Administration (presumably) just because you like them?
“But still we hear the hysterical shriekings about this “dangerous abuse of power.†”
– Will you be a good little subservient citizen when power changes hands? ...and it will, eventually. Remember, precedents established under Bush will not simply evaporate after Bush is out of office. Are these powers ones that you are willing to afford the likes of Hillary or Howard Dean or (insert your favorite commie/pinko/liberal)? Be very careful what you wish for…
10:46 am
[...] PUNDIT VINCE AUT MORIRE VODKAPUNDIT WALLO WORLD WIDE AWAKES WIZBANG WUZZADEM ZERO POINT BLOG ABRAMOFF SINGING, HASTERT DANCING TURNING PLOWSHARES INTO SWORDS ILLINOIS KID’S BLOGS MUZZLED BY SCHOOL DISTRICT THE MINDBLOGGLING CONSEQUENCES OF BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME THE AVENGER (PART I) THE AVENGER (PART II) LEAPIN’ LEOPOLD! JASON KEEPS SLASHING AWAY THE SPOILED BRAT WING OF THE GOP SO MUCH FOR PLAYING THE “CORRUPTION CARD” 24 TILL “24″ CROSSTOWN SHOWDOWN HAMSTRINGING INTELLIGENCE BUSH BASHING 101: WHEN IN DOUBT, RECYCLE WHY I WILL DRAG MY SORRY ASS TO THE POLLS ON NOVEMBER 6 LEOPOLD’S LATEST LACKS LOQUACITY LOOKING FOR MIDDLE GROUND IN THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE ARE PARTS OF THE NSA TELEPHONE RECORDS STORY BOGUS? SITE NEWS: BLOGROLL OPENINGS MY OBLIGATORY RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDENT’S IMMIGRATION SPEECH CAREENING TOWARD THE FINALE “24″ POST SLIGHTLY DELAYED ABC NEWS CALL MONITORING: WHAT’S GOING ON? “24″ SPECULATION FEST “SPEAK THE SPEECH, I PRAY YOU,” MR. PRESIDENT THERE’S STILL FIRE IN THE BELLY OF THE RIGHT “24″ (64) ABLE DANGER (10) Bird Flu (5) Blogging (82) Books (7) CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS (66) CHICAGO BEARS (9) CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE (24) Cindy Sheehan (12) Ethics (54) General (276) Government (40) History (54) IMMIGRATION REFORM (11) Iran (25) KATRINA (26) Katrina Timeline (4) Marvin Moonbat (14) Media (78) Middle East (24) Moonbats (47) NET NEUTRALITY (2) Open House (1) Politics (190) Science (14) Space (12) Supreme Court (19) War on Terror (106) WATCHER’S COUNCIL (44) WHITE SOX (1) WORLD POLITICS (40) WORLD SERIES (14) Admin Login Register Valid XHTML XFN 5 Responses to “ABRAMOFF SINGING, HASTERT DANCING” [...]
10:05 am
crazy frog ding ding
crazy frog ding ding
What good is an obscenity trial except to popularize literature?—Nero Wolfe, “The League of Frightened Men”
12:19 pm
lycos
lycos
lycos – lycos
Just to have it is enough.
Hope that the day after you die is a nice day.