The hysterically exaggerated, intellectually dishonest portrayal of the workings of the NSA surveillance program by many on the left is something I have catalogued on this site since its existence was revealed by the New York Times way back in December of 2005.
To be honest, the netroots have made themselves ridiculously easy targets for ridicule.
My own reservations about the program remain. Reasonable, honest people can debate how this program skirts the law and may – depending exactly how it works which is something that to this day remains hidden – cross the line of legality. The fact that debate raged in the Justice Department over the legality of the program with many career prosecutors opposed while others supported it should demonstrate to any reasonable person that at worst, the Terrorist Surveillance Program was an extremely close call.
Not so scream the netnuts. To the hysterical three year olds who make up the “reality based community,” facts don’t matter nor does it cross their infantile minds that such a surveillance program is even necessary. The program is illegal – no debate is allowed.
To such an incurious crowd we are now about to hand the reigns of government.
What is most worrisome is that they have so much invested in denying the reality of the terrorist threat – that the whole thing was dreamed up by Bush to seize power and become dictator – that one can legitimately question just how serious these mountebanks will be about national security. No doubt they will be relentless in their pursuit of terrorists – after we’ve been hit again. Cold comfort for those Americans who die as a result of their “terrorists are innocent until they commit an overt act” mindset.
Holy Christ! Even Barack Obama thinks the NSA surveillance program is indispensable to our national security. Of course, Obama has no better idea that the program is or was illegal despite his claims to the contrary. He is simply “playing the rubes” in the netroots community as Ian Welsh tells it at Firedoglake:
The FISA Cloture vote just passed. The Senate will now consider the motion to proceed with the bill, then they’ll head to the bill itself (corrected procedural details, h/t and thanks to CBolt). Various motions will be put forward to strip immunity, odds are they will fail. Then a number of the 80 who voted to restrict debate will vote against FISA so they can say they were against the bill. However this was the real vote, and the rest is almost certainly nothing but kabuki for the rubes.Obama and McCain were both absent, as was Clinton. Unimpressive, but unsurprising, though I suppose I’m disappointed by Clinton (Obama has made it clear he didn’t intend to try and stop the bill.) Clinton and Obama will claim there was no point since it wasn’t close. But, with their leadership, it might well have gone the other way.
The folks who actually voted for the Bill of Rights are listed below. Remember, after the debate there’ll be a larger number of people who vote against this bill, but this was the real vote, and those Senators are just playing the rubes.
In less stressful, less partisan times, it may have been possible to debate the necessity for this surveillance program and even whether or not it actually steps over the line of legality, although how any definitive answers could have been arrived at with key parts of the program still classified and unknown to all but a very select few in government would have been problematic indeed.
So instead, we get ignorant rantings about the Constitution being torn up while brave liberals manned the battlements trying heroically to save American democracy:
A few weasel words from there, but Obama is totally cool with the precedent of the government giving a slip of paper to a corporation allowing them to break the law. He’s cool with the premise of “we were just following orders” that was shot down at Nuremberg being revived. He’s cool with if the President does it, then it isn’t illegal. He’s cool with a bunch of the other really dangerous aspects of the bill, including the vacuuming up of every communication that leaves or enters the United States without even the caveat that they be related to terrorism. He’s cool with a national surveillance state.Just plain cool with it.
Gee. If all that is true, I am going to turn in my Captain America outfit and move to Brazil. Maybe Lambchop has a spare room he can let me stay in.
Of course, the above is wildly exaggerated – childishly so. Nice touch raising the spectre of Nazis, don’t you think? Battling fascism has always been the counterpoint to righties bravely battling Sharia law here in the US. Neither exists in the real world but boy is it goddamned heroic to see yourself doing it.
The only germ of truth in dday’s idiotic rant above is the “vacuuming up” of communications – a data mining program evidently carried out by the NSA with the assistance of the Telecoms. It is unclear whether this is a separate program or part of the NSA surveillance made public by the Times. But the USA Today reported back in May of 2006 that this data mining project includes a massive number of purely domestic calls as well. The program may have been confirmed by internal AT&T documents.
Question: Did the Telecoms violate the privacy rights of Americans by handing over records to the government of purely domestic calls? Once again, the nuance of the issue escapes the potato heads on the left who are licking their chops at the prospect of massive class action lawsuits against some major corporations that could easily bankrupt them as the legal fees alone could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Supreme Court decided a case that many experts believe bears directly on the privacy issue:
The U.S. Supreme Court has drawn a legal line between collecting phone numbers and routing information, and obtaining the content of phone calls. In a ruling in 1979, the court said in Smith v. Maryland that a phone company’s installation, at police request, of a device to record numbers dialed at a home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.“We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial,” Justice Harry Blackmun wrote. He noted the court had said “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.”
As I said, another gray area where technology and perceived necessity have outstripped – temporarily – the law’s ability to be absolutely clear about the line that must be drawn.
So instead of reasoned debate, we’re stuck with these wild charges that bear little resemblance to what the actual situation is much less the important questions raised by the actions of the Administration in developing and carrying out these programs.
The left just isn’t satisfied with opposing problematic programs. They have to ratchet up the rhetoric to unbearable levels of sophistry and stupidity in order to be seen as saviors of American civilization, standing alone in thwarting the evil machinations of Bush who, after all, is planning another 9/11 attack before the election so that he can cancel it and seize power indefinitely.
Their self image just couldn’t bear the thought of being reasonable and discussing the issues rationally. Too boring. Too vanilla. Only by playing the drama queen will their psyches be assuaged and their egos be satisfied.
Eventually, thankfully, Bush will be gone and chances are they will have Obama to kick around. But somehow, I just don’t see them getting so all-fired upset at a President Obama if he were to continue these surveillance programs or even expand them. At that point, all the nuance involved disappears and a new light of reason and rationality will shine on this debate. The “reality based community” will accept the reality that one of their own is in charge – which is what this whole thing has been about to begin with.
10:02 am
There was a surprising amount of resistance to Obama’s compromise on FISA from the left. As a Kos regular, I was pleasantly surprised that even some of the staunch Obama loyalists were breaking rank over this issue.
I think America is becoming a nation of fearful people obsessed with security. For me, one of the greatest things about this nation is that we have a rich history of demanding freedom and civil liberties – “give me liberty of give me death.”
The Bush administration has systematically shredded our Constitution and trampled our civil liberties. If only for awhile, it was none the less refreshing to see Congress stand for the civil liberties of the people.
10:20 am
Reasonable, honest people can debate how this program skirts the law and may – depending exactly how it works which is something that to this day remains hidden – cross the line of legality.
Do you understand the absurdity of this sentence? How are we supposed to debate this if the details remain hidden?
There have been numerous analyses by outside intel experts who have guessed the parameters of the program. My point is that we can debate several aspects of it – necessity, scope, even what kinds of info would constitute a violation of privacy – without knowing the exact details of the technological functions that bring in the data.
It has been speculated by some, for instance, that FISA warrants were not necessary because of the way the data was collected. I have no clue whether this is true and wouldn’t include it as a defense of the program at all. But when one side of the debate simply says “debate over, no argument is needed or necessary” that’s stupid. And that’s the point of the post.
ed.
10:43 am
“If only for awhile, it was none the less refreshing to see Congress stand for the civil liberties of the people.”
Too little too late. Where were they when FDR was rounding up Japanese Americans and Clinton’s ATF was shooting incendiary rounds into a house filled with children and pregnant women?
11:51 am
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 06/26/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
12:08 pm
*”Question: Did the Telecoms violate the privacy rights of Americans by handing over records to the government of purely domestic calls?”*
Boy, that’s a great question. Luckily we’ll never have to know the answer after this passes.
*”Once again, the nuance of the issue escapes the potato heads on the left who are licking their chops at the prospect of massive class action lawsuits against some major corporations that could easily bankrupt them as the legal fees alone could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.”*
This makes my heart ache for major corporations. If they violate the law, and my civil rights, then I should have the right to sue them into oblivion. What you seem to be missing is that this is America. A new and bigger major corporation will spring up to take it’s place, and it will employ even MORE hardworking Americans.
I find it hard to believe that you have even read this bill Rick. And yes, I have. Isn’t it just like a wuss liberal to want to conserve our inalienable rights and keep the federal government from amassing too much power? They’re so pathetic and predictable.
Many with a lot more legal acumen than you or I say differently – that the Telecoms did not violate the law or our privacy. And that’s my point in writing this piece.
ed.
12:50 pm
Where were they when FDR was rounding up Japanese Americans
Perhaps they were not serving in Congress yet?
My takes on this whole sorry FISA update debate are:
(A) We need to develop a privacy culture and privacy legislation in this country, or by exponential technological curve default, it will slide into a ubiquitous surveillance society/state. If we collectively decide we want to trade all of our privacy for something else (e.g. security, very precise targeting of marketing, etc), fine, but let’s not slide into it over the next 25 years as the technology makes it more and more possible and inexpensive.
(B) The retroactive immunity for telecoms looks and smells like (“has the appearance of”) a GWBush administration wrongdoing protection act. Supporters of immunity can dress it up all they want as e.g. preventing activists from forcing discovery/testimony that exposes details of secret methods and programs, but it still has the appearance of protecting the administration from prosecution and/or embarrassment. I’d bet at 80 percent odds that the GWBush administration ordered (or otherwise made to happen) some minor (at least) improper and possibly illegal surveillance of political opponents, but there is no point betting now.
2:06 pm
I understand what you’re saying, and I agree that many on the left have pretty much made up their minds that the program is illegal. But we’ve been trying to debate this for years, and overall the positions of the GOP have been as follows:
– Any attempt to debate this issue is unpatriotic and endangers America.
– Any attempt to change parts of the surveillance program is unpatriotic and endangers America.
– Any attempt to find out the details of the program is unpatriotic and endangers America.
When you mention debate, I assume you’re talking about the kind of debate where we weigh the details of the program and make changes if necessary. You may think that this type of debate happen when all we know about the program are leaked details and the speculation of experts, but I think that this is totally naive.
One of the frustrations of those of us on the left is the complete lack of curiosity of those on the right. Although I disagree with a lot in your article, I was happy to see this:
I just don’t see them getting so all-fired upset at a President Obama if he were to continue these surveillance programs or even expand them.
Yes! This is the conversation we should be having. Righties should be skeptical about the use of this program by a Democratic president. I think our government should be using high-tech methods of rooting out terrorism, but the details of this program should not be dependent on who is in the White House at the time. All Americans should be worried about a program that gives the government too much opportunity to invade the privacy of law-abiding citizens.
I agree attempts to close off debate on the right by raising patriotism or national security has been there. But I am pretty sure it is not as widespread as the vast majority on the left screaming taht the program is illegal.
I hope Obama uses the program in whatever way is legal and cognizant of individual rights. And you won’t hear the right complaining about it. If you do, you have every right to yell hypocrisy.
ed.
3:23 pm
“I hope Obama uses the program in whatever way is legal and cognizant of individual rights. And you won’t hear the right complaining about it. If you do, you have every right to yell hypocrisy.”
Bah. Hoping that Obama does the right thing is as ridiculous as hoping GWB won’t lie to us. There should be no HOPE. There should be iron clad law and rules to restrict the president from even getting tempted to screw the people.
Let’s get one thing straight here. This isn’t about terror. This is about unchecked power. Terror is just the boogyman of the hour.
Oh Puleeeez. “Unchecked power?” What a fucking drama queen. There is so much oversight on that program it’s pitiful – Justice, Congress, the NSA lawyers – Jesus loving christ how much more “checks” do you want?
The trouble is for idiots like you, it’s all about being a hero and saving the country from the evil of your political opponents. You are mentally ill and need either a pacifier or a rubber room.
ed.
8:56 pm
One other thing, if you’re counting on FISA to safeguard your Fourth Amendment rights…forget it…they’re already gone.
The real problem exists in the PATRIOT Act. Bush stripped our Fourth Amendment rights with that heinous piece of legislation.
Bush stripped many of our civil liberties because we let him. Bush should be impeached for allowing 9/11 to happen, then he used it as a scare tactic to strip many of our civil liberties.
3:32 am
Oh really? Obama’s poised to be the next guy. The dems will sweep the house and the senate, and you think this is political? Your guys are my political opponents as much as the dems. Make it sound as dramatic as you want, but deep down you know I’m right. I don’t want the Republicans to have this power as much as I don’t want the Dems to have it.
Republicans are such tough talkers when it comes to so called security. Follow the money and look at the votes man. It’s not too hard to figure out just how cheap a vote really is.
Security is such a political farce. I’ll take my right to privacy any day over so called security. Again, I’ve read the entire bill, have you?
11:09 am
Hey Moonbats:
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Not very adult of you but I sympathize with the thought behind it.
ed.
9:10 am
There was a surprising amount of resistance to Obama’s compromise on FISA from the left. As a Kos regular, I was pleasantly surprised that even some of the staunch Obama loyalists were breaking rank over this issue.
The Obamaniacs should be used to being treated this way, at least till Jan 2009. Obama will do what it takes to be elected, including throwing the leftosphere under the bus if necessary.
The rightosphere shouldn’t take a solace in this though. Obama, rated the most liberal senator, should be back in normal form once sworn in as President.