insomnomaniac

Those who would sacrifice their intelligence for "education" deserve neither

OK, the time has come for me to get off my (hopefully) temporarily oversized ass to say something about this stupid NSA "wiretapping" controversy.

These people might as well be wearing black hoods, they're living in the dark of unreality as it is anyway!

Where were these "protesters" when pretty much every President since Reagan (Clinton included) allowed exactly the same thing? Oh yeah, in diapers, I forgot.

And now they are in college where, I would have hoped, they would learn the following:

• The NSA does not answer directly to the President any more than the CIA or FBI does. The President sets policy, authorizes certain things, and they employ the TACTICS that support that policy. In fact, they SUGGEST the tactics because they are the ones up on the current technology and challenges facing surveillance today. The President doesn't just wake up one day and say "Hey, let's go eavesdrop on Americans, mmmm'kay?"


• Calling this entire thing "domestic spying" is not only a misrepresentation of the situation, it's a blatant attempt to arouse fear in the hearts of every American--conservatives included. No matter who you are, you have reason NOT to want the President listening in on your phone calls. Even "wire tapping" is innacurate as "wires" are rarely (if ever) used to listen in on wireLESS communication, which is precisely the reason the President had to authorize the power that he authorized. Today's enemy is not using land lines to call Moscow. He is using throw-away cell phones, perhaps to call land lines right here in the USA, perhaps to call another cell phone here too. The point is, no one is sneaking in to someone's home and putting bugs in their phone, they are listening in to what is traveling through the AIR (quite literally), so what exactly are they getting a "warrant" for?


• There is no fucking way to know if a person on EITHER end of a conversation is an American citizen, none whatsoever. All they can know is where the number is "based" or "domiciled" as some would say. That's it. And with phones based with companies here that have international calling capability, the situation is even trickier. They can tell where the call is coming from, but they have to CHECK first, and that means listening or locking on to the signal at least. And what if some goon in Syria or Jordan or Iran is calling a guy in Detroit, don't we WANT to know what the hell they're talking about if the number in that foreign place belongs to a known terrorist? Even if it doesn't, don't we still want to know why the number of calls between the two numbers has increased markedly within a short period of time? Should we just assume this is a new dating couple and leave them alone? Should we assume that it's just because Abdul's Mom just went in for hip replacement surgery and his brother is calling him to update him on her progress? Or should we at least wonder if perhaps his motives for calling so much (especially if Abdul is a guy on a watch list) has something to do with an attack he's planning on our soil?!


• We don't even ask people applying for drivers licenses (in some states anyway, thankfully not the one I live in now) whether they are citizens before letting them drive what could be a potential weapon (loaded down with enough CF or fertilizer, you betcha, never mind with a loaded--as in drunk--driver who can't read the English sign saying "WRONG WAY" on the exit ramp), but we're supposed to ask every recipient of every call from every potential enemy whether they are a citizen or not? And what if they are? Aldrich Ames was a citizen, he set us back with the Russians DECADES, and that was WITH Clinton listening in on his phone calls! I'd like to know how this SHOULD go. Should they first trace who "owns" the receiving phone? Should the NSA then contact that person? Let's see....
  NSA: "Excuse me sir, we are the NSA. We've noticed your phone is on the receiving end of an alarming number of calls (yeah, like one wouldn't be enough) from a guy who has repeatedly called for martyrdom on US soil and the destruciton of the US and all its allies, and we were just wondering if you are the only person using this line?"

  PHONE OWNER: "CLICK!"

  Then what? Should they ask the FBI to physically follow Mr. or Ms. phone owner? Is this any less preferable to listening in to a conversation and either
  a) discovering it's just Aunt Nissa from Saudi Arabia calling with her recipe for Cous Cous
  or
  b) discovering that it's cousin Nidal calling to say "It's a go for Tuesday, pick up your bomb vest at locker #245 at the Port Authority in NYC" or some coded version thereof...

  I'm gonna go with NO, it's not preferable. Watching a guy talk on the phone is just not that telling, you know? If you can't hear what he's saying, you'll know as much about his conversation as watching him take a piss will tell you about his health (actually, even less than that).

  So what then? Should we just kick back and feel all good inside knowing that if when we got blown to bits by the guy whose conversation we didn't to intrude upon (or the guy who was calling him from overseas, or just down the block or wherever, as if it matters), at least our collective conscience was clear?

  Know what cracks me up about all this? The very same people getting all exericsed about this nonsense are those who probably talk at full volume on their cell phones in public places and question the necessity of asking ANYONE, whether they are a U.S. citizen EVER for ANY REASON.

  Want to vote? Not a citizen? SURE, why not? I mean, the U.S. probably controls your destiny whether you live here or not, might as well let you have a say in what we do, right?

  Want to drive? Have at it!

  Want to avoid paying taxes (other than sales tax of course), sure, who doesn't?

  Want a free education and healthcare for yourself or your kids? And why wouldn't you? Step right up! What RIGHT do we have to question your citizenship?!

  What's that Mr. President? You want to allow your techno-spies to check into the content of a call placed from a number that triggers alarm bells to a number that might or might not belong to someone who might or might not be a citizen who might or might not mean us any harm? HOW DARE YOU without checking their citizenship FIRST?! What if they're American? An American citizen has RIGHTS dammit!

  And even if the NSA did check on the citizenship (and rights afforded therefore, I guess) of both callers, so what? Have these morons never heard of Tim McVeigh? Can you imagine how many Oklahoma families only wish that the NSA or FBI or someone had intercepted a call between him and Terry Nichols before it was too late?

  Ben Franklin was a wise old bugger about some things, but he had his flaws too. Perhaps these students of history ought to study some of the things said by another wise American, namely Justice Robert H. Jackson. He may have written the dissenting opinion in Terminello v. Chicago, but his words live on and have as much (if not more) relevance today than they did in 1949 when he wrote them:
  

  "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

  I like to think even Poor Richard himself would have agreed with the judge on this point.

  Posted by insomnomaniac at January 24, 2006 9:55 PM | TrackBack