Catnmus Weighs in on Domestic Surveillance
So I've been thinking about this domestic spying situation. No matter what way I turn it, it stinks. And I don't know why, these many weeks later, there's not more investigation. Here's what I mean.
Bush claims that he had this secret meeting of high-ranking senators and advisors, when he first crafted this policy, and they all agreed that it was the right thing to do. That may be true, but I can't believe that none of these senators (particularly the one (if I remember correctly) Democrat that was included) requested any sort of oversight - progress reports such as numbers of calls intercepted, a couple of examples of the kinds of calls and information recorded, etc. This particular problem is on these senators, of course. But okay, they didn't. Now what?
It's one thing to say that "they didn't ask for this oversight". And it's another thing to say "we can't tell you how we're doing this because then the terrorists will know what we're doing and they'll change their behavior. (Forget for the moment that that's what we want them to do - to stop being terrorists!) At this point, the terrorists know the policy - you won't be giving anything away now. And you trusted these senators for five years to keep this secret. Why not show the data to these particular senators, and let them say whether it's still a good idea? Or better yet, give some examples of specific information from specific calls that resulted in specific arrests. But you don't have to be specific about names, dates, and the actual words used on the phone calls. You could just tell us that "we intercepted a call about a bombing of a bridge. We investigated and took two men into custody. They had bomb-making equipment." Then, you can show the full set of data to your senatorial advisors as proof of your claims. Because face it, we don't believe you anymore, and neither should they.
So, that brings up the next point. Say you're scanning the phone company's logs and you spot a phone number that you think is al-Qaeda's. (Is anyone thinking yet that this is ridiculous?) You're claiming that this is such a surprise to you that you don't have time to run to a judge to get a warrant to listen in on that phone call. And that this surveillance you're doing is completely legal. Fine. But do you mean to sit here and tell me that when bin Laden calls Fred Phelps, you're not going to want to turn around and monitor who Fred calls? At this point, Fred is strictly domestic. Wouldn't you have to get a warrant to eavesdrop on Fred? What's your justification for "probable cause" for that warrant? You've been playing this to the American people as being strictly "foreign-to-domestic". But clearly Fred may call anyone on American soil that he wants to, and you can't eavesdrop on that without a warrant, can you? (What do you want to bet that this administration has done exactly that?)
Back to the secrecy issue. In my opinion, if anyone ever asks you to keep a secret that makes you feel uncomfortable, then they are usually doing something very wrong. Think about child molesters and what they tell their victims. Think about blackmailers. You may say that sometimes people don't tell us things that are "for our own good". Um, fine, but, usually when we find out that there is something to know, it's best to get it all out in the open at that point. The more you drag it out, the more guilty you look (and probably are).
Back to the oversight issue. I bet most of those senatorial advisors were quite surprised to find out that you renewed this thing forty-five times! I bet the time limit in there is the only concession they could wring from you, and you couldn't even respect that.
So, that's my long-winded way of saying that there may have been some "grains of goodness and rightness" in the original intent of the policy and the advisors that agreed to it in the first days after 9/11. But as to the rest of the five years, I have only two words. For shame!
6:57:34 AM 
|
|
