Part-Time Pundit: Forget Eavesdropping

« What I've Been Up To | Main | Articles of Impeachment Being Written »

December 19, 2005

Forget Eavesdropping - Let's just surrender

After Katrina, one of the blog posts that was making the rounds was tribes. It's essentially a societal commentary written during the aftermath and political blood-letting that took place.

I remembered this article in the recent debate on the eavesdropping that the government is apparently doing in the course of the War on Terror. Politicians are taking turns pointing fingers, and apparently the New York Times timed the release not for the soonest possible dissemination of the information, but to shill a book that's coming out and try to sink the Patriot Act. (Yes, they are just that unpatriotic that they can't even vote for a law called the Patriot Act).

Particularly, that the pink tribes out there still don't believe there is a war on. They believe that they can still blame 9/11 on us and that all we need to do to win the War on Terror is "understand" our enemies and "raise awareness" (read as surrender).

First things first, who cares if the government is listening to phone calls? There are complaints that warrants haven't been issued. Let me get this straight, a warrant issued by a star chambers court (FISA court) where only the government gets to present a case, all the proceedings are sealed, and the judge hearing the case is appointed by the administration is safe and protects civil liberties, but a policy reviewed by the Administration every 90 days to make sure it's actually targeting bad guys is not? Would you trust a closed court that did not allow for the accused to present a defense an adequate way to try criminal offenses? Didn't think so. The whole process is cloak-and-dagger to being with, how is this news?

I have a cell phone; that means everyone within about 25 miles can hear what I say on it. That's right, you can listen in to the occasional suggestive comment I make to my wife. I don't call phone sex lines, I don't buy drugs, and I'm not trying to score some hookers. You listen to my phone calls and about the most you'll get out of it is that I love my wife. Scandalous! I figure most people are the same way. Innocence rarely utters shrill shrieks.

That should not be read to mean that I think the man should be in the business of listening to everyone's phone calls, but that there are some phone calls I'd like the government to listen in on. Particularly the ones that say when and where the next terrorist strike is going to happen.

However, the pink tribes have once again mounted the ramparts against the sheepdogs. It's not the wolves that are dangerous; it's the sheepdogs that protect us. Cops don't protect us from criminals, they intimidate minorities. Soldiers aren't defenders of freedom; they are indentured baby-killers. In short, the perpetrators are the victims and the defenders are the perpetrators. If we would only disarm, then we can all live in peace, and joy, any light.

For every victory the United States achieves, there are those who would choose to then lay blame. "We must learn from our mistakes!" The Iraqis just voted for their first constitutional government, instead of celebrating this event we are mourning our "failure".

After 9/11 and in fact during Hurricane Katrina, I tried various ways to get involved. I made several phone calls, was turned down, and moved on. I didn't feel good about it because I knew I could have done something. I learned more than peeling potatoes in the military and, if nothing else, I have proven that I'm a darn good crisis manager. That's the difference between the greys and the pinks. I wanted to get involve and helped. The pink wanted to blame FEMA.

The culture war is little more than this: will we do it ourselves, or will we hold out our hands and wait for someone else to do it for us. There is the constant drumbeat from the left, "you can't do it" (aka affirmative action), "you can't trust others to do it" (aka the fight against faith-based initiatives), and so on.

The facts are these, no one ever was known for being able to find the best government welfare programs. Stories of success in history are of people who fought, strived, failed, but got up and succeeded. These are the people we celebrate.

Before we give in to pessimism, despair, and finger-pointed, how about we at least figure out if the powers were misused first. Maybe we should wait to kick around the sheepdogs until we figure out if they did wrong. How about, for a change, we not assume every evil motivation simple by the fact that someone somewhere has another opinion? Instead of the raging pink brigade telling us everything that's wrong, how about they contribute something that helps things get better instead of telling us who is to blame?

Posted by John Bambenek at December 19, 2005 2:29 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://jcb.pentex-net.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/855

Comments

You make some good points. I joke around with a friend of mine while talking on the phone or sending email back and forth that Big Brother might be listening in and recording our conversations. Boy oh boy are they going to be bored to tears..

In any event, a lot of the confussion seems to be the inability to understand the difference between obtaining information via "listening in" for the purpose of gaining a conviction in a criminal matter in the courts and that information which might prove useful in preventing a terrorist act against the US. Listening in may be rude or even unscrupulous; however, there are valid reasons to target known agents working against our country without ever intending to take them to court for some crime that may arise.

The best blog I've come across was written by a fellow who goes by the name Cerberus, here is a link to that article:

http://www.sparkpod.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/sparkpod.woa/wa/view?1021127

Posted by: TF Stern at December 19, 2005 10:35 PM

I agree that people, especially those in Congress, need to stop pussyfooting around the fact that we are at war.

Unfortunately people, especially those in Congress, have helped create a system where pussyfooting around the fact that we are war is part of our laws. Most of which due to the Vietnam War fallout that gave us the War Powers Act and today's big issue, FISA.

Both are framed around prior Supreme Court rulings but go beyond what the Court ruled.

So now we have Congress authorizing statutory constructs of military use that legally exists in some dimension of warlike perception. Meanwhile back in reality an actual war is occurring and for legal purposes the Executive Branch must act like the war doesn't exist for some laws, and does exist for others. His inherent powers as Commander in Chief under Article II brought under the domination of Congressional committees and investigations and endless statutory clusterfrags in order to make a step of progress.

It's no wonder that this Administration, or any Administration for that matter, would want to return some of the war powers back under the control of the Executive Branch. The founders intentionally kept those powers from the Congress as running a war doesn't work when you have bickering mob for a Commander in Chief. In today's world it'd be a bickering mob of 435 people all wanting to run the war their way.

As far as I can tell, Bush violated 50 USC 1802 of the FISA statutes. Even with the arguments that the 2001 Authorization of Force allowed an exemption, which worked for detaining al Qaeda operatives, but doesn't mesh with this specific law. There is no "unless otherwise authorized by statute clause" as the Attorney General claims.

My response? GOOD!

FISA specifically allows his actions if this were a time of "declared war". The reason for that is such actions are powers inherent in his Article II powers. And that power exists in a time of war, whether or not Congress wants to call it a "declared war", a "quasi war", a warish like state with warlike situations, or in the current situation an authorized use of force. War by any other name, is still a war. And the President has war powers when we are at war. No amount of word games can change that.

I wish more people saw it my way. I'm a huge proponent of protecting civil liberties. I believe that the Constitution is in full effect whether or not we are at war. But in this case Congress has gone so far out of their way to protect the possibility of infringement of civil liberties that they've actually started violating other parts of the Constitution to get their way. FISA was a nice idea, but it just went too far.

My rants on the topic:

How Bush violated FISA but upheld the Constitution

Bush's rhetoric from the past could hurt critical programs and policies today.

Posted by: Glock21 at December 21, 2005 8:01 PM