| |
Bush says he signed NSA wiretap order
by k at 12:15 am EST, Dec 18, 2005 |
Rattle said : Bush added: "Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."
I do not see any direct legitimate way this is putting citizens at risk. I am sure al-Qaeda assumes any communications inside the United States could be monitored. Rather, I see this as exposing an abuse of executive powers that are putting citizens civil liberties at risk. There is no system of accountability in place.
Well, after all this, Al Queda will be a little more confident that those wiretaps won't exist, because they'll know the American public won't tolerate it. So starting from that, I guess you could make the connection that lives are at risk. The fact is, though, that that's not the fucking point. Will greater surveillance reduce the threat of violence from terrorists? Probably. Is it worth the trade? NO. That's what Americans have said since the very beginning... we don't want to live in a country where every move is monitored and scrutinized. Even if it means that we're more vulnerable to certain types of attack, we're willing to take that risk to live in a free society. At least, that's what I thought. We'll see. |
| |
RE: Bush says he signed NSA wiretap order
by Rattle at 2:23 am EST, Dec 18, 2005 |
Well, after all this, Al Queda will be a little more confident that those wiretaps won't exist, because they'll know the American public won't tolerate it. So starting from that, I guess you could make the connection that lives are at risk.
No, that's not really the problem. The fact is, though, that that's not the fucking point. Will greater surveillance reduce the threat of violence from terrorists? Probably. Is it worth the trade? NO. That's what Americans have said since the very beginning... we don't want to live in a country where every move is monitored and scrutinized. Even if it means that we're more vulnerable to certain types of attack, we're willing to take that risk to live in a free society.
Bush isn't going to stop authorizing this. I don't think it's going to stop either. I do think that we have a right to not have our every move monitored and scrutinized. That right should not be infringed, without some system in place to make sure there is a legitimate reason. There is a Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court. According to what's been published about FSIC, it always turns around it's result in less than 72 hours, and most of the time in minutes or hours. That's at least a good point for a check. If some agency comes forth, asking to request information on a reasonable number of people because they are expanding a link analysis on some known terrorist contact in the US, they should get it. Why couldn't the NSA get authorization to do what they needed to do legitimately? Where are the checks in the system? What the hell have they been doing in the legislature since the Patriot Act? The words "legitimate secret court" really don't seem to go together well. Kind of scary actually. However, if that's what is necessary to approve warrants for domestic spying, I'll take it over nothing. A court and a review body? At least? Review is important. If someone gets included in a terrorism investigation when it adds a bunch of people to some link analysis.. How long can they continue to be watched without having to get reauthorized? What information about them is kept? Who has access to it from that point afterwards? I have a feeling this week will have the title "Civil Liberties for The Holiday" in the Year in Graphs. |
|
Bush says he signed NSA wiretap order
by Rattle at 11:41 pm EST, Dec 17, 2005 |
Bush added: "Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."
A la Pentagon Papers, information has leaked that's having an effect on the citizenry's perceptions of government policy and actions. If the Bush Administration tries to actually press charges on the New York Times, they will get nowhere with it. That's the only reason they are not threatening to do so. This is simply a PR play, but one I feel will backfire. I do not see any direct legitimate way this is putting citizens at risk. I am sure al-Qaeda assumes any communications inside the United States could be monitored. Rather, I see this as exposing an abuse of executive powers that are putting citizens civil liberties at risk. There is no system of accountability in place. This is starting to look more serious than a blow job. "He's trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this, and that's just absurd," Feingold said. "There's not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps." He added that the law clearly lays out how to obtain permission for wiretaps. "If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act," Feingold said. "They can ask for a warrant to do that, and even if there's an emergency situation, they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours."
According to Bush, he has reauthorized the NSA's domestic wiretap program over thirty times. |
|
|
