Monday, December 19, 2005

Talking Points, continued

Yesterday, I unraveled the talking points used to defend the spying program.

My apologies- I forgot one. So here's #4...

4. Fear not! This doesn't apply to average Americans! Just terrorists!

Many right-wing bloggers, etc, are blowing off this scandal by stating that this isn't the big brother program people are fearing it is... it's only used to spy on known terrorist suspects. Former Ashcroft pal Carol Platt Liebau writes in a recent blog post that this is simply "the interception of international communications by people inside the United States who have been determined to have 'a clear link' to al- Qaida or related terrorist organizations."

Well that sounds okay, doesn't it? We want them to keep an eye on terror suspects.

Here's the catch, as I see it... If this program was legitimately on the up-and-up, and only directed at known/potential terrorists, why weren't the legal procedures followed? Why did the President, in a serious breach of power that makes Watergate look small in comparison, bypass the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) system and not seek the required warrants? The FISA courts are set up specifically, and secretly, for this exact type of scenario. The response he needed to keep it secret is nonsense. It's not as if the NSA officials would hold a press conference after receiving warrants to say "Hello, here is the list of people the President was given warrants to spy on today." Secrecy would be maintained, but so would the legal requirements.

Could the problem have arisen that, in many cases, they would not have legally been able to get warrants? That there wasn't enough evidence to warrant one, so they did it anyway? After all, who determines which Americans have "'a clear link' to al- Qaida or related terrorist organizations"? The intelligence community? The same one that failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks and said Saddam had a nuclear weapons program? My guess is that the President was casting his net a whole lot wider than those with a 'clear link' to terror groups. After 9/11, we know that people whose names just sounded like terror suspects were chucked into prisons without lawyers or trials. The singer formerly known as Cat Stevens is not allowed to fly on airplanes in the U.S. because his last name was 'Islam'. Many people who had no connection to terrorists were rounded up after 9/11 and some were quietly released a year or two later when the obvious was finally confirmed. My guess is that this is the case with the NSA spying program.

Furthermore, I don't believe that this program was only directed at just randomly 'suspicious' Muslims either. The President may have been pulling a Nixon and spying on his political enemies as well. Cindy Sheehan, I'd listen for clicks on your next phone conversation. We learned earlier this month that the Pentagon was spying on anti-war/peace groups. An MSNBC investigation learned that intelligence gathering at the Defense Department "now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups" and that a "DOD database obtained by NBC News includes nearly four dozen anti-war meetings or protests, including some that have taken place far from any military installation, post or recruitment center." The database contained not only the location and nature of each meeting and protest, but also detailed information on the participants, including the names of attendees and car models and license numbers. If the DOD was doing this, do we have any reason to believe that the NSA and their eavesdropping program did not target the same type of organizations? Because there were no warrants or record... we may never know.

I know what you're saying, 'Jeremy, your tin foil hat is on too tight'. Bullshit. The facts are in and it doesn't take more than one step to jump to these conclusions. If I am wrong, then why the unconstitutional, and unprecedented, level of secrecy? Why not get the required FISA warrants? I do not believe the program only targeted those with "'a clear link' to al- Qaida or related terrorist organizations". I believe that we all were potentially targeted. Ever sign a Move-On petition, etc? You may be next.

If you believe I'm wrong and we should give the President the benefit of the doubt, I have WMDs in Iraq I want to sell you.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home