I spy with NSA's eye
Is the gummint keeping tabs on US citizens? This from the New York Times:
Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.
[...]
While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said.
The article blows things out of proportion early on, but goes on to say the administration has taken great pains to ensure the rights of US citizens are not being violated. It also indicates that this is limited to only to concerns regarding Al Qaeda.
Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States. Usually, though, the government can only target phones and e-mail messages in the United States by first obtaining a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which holds its closed sessions at the Justice Department.
The NYT is a left wing publication who has demonstrated it has an axe to grind with the Bush administration. It suggests our collective asses are in danger of getting reemed by the government. Yet, it also admits that the eavesdropping is limited to international communications (monitoring communications between two locations in the US still requires a warrant). Still, the article raises concerns.
I don't relish the idea of the government monitoring citizens without warrants. At the same time (as the article indicates) it has done some good. We are at war against an enemy that has infiltrated our country. It requires extreme measures. These are dangerous times and we have be sure not only to keep ourselves from giving terrorists enough rope to hang us, but also to keep from giving the government enough rope to hang us.
Hugh Hewitt thinks the NYT has unwittingly given ammo to terrorists. He points to this passage:
The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.
Good point. Hugh also points out that the article contains little useful information (mostly it is just hearsay from anonymous sources).
Real Clear Politics questions the timing of the article. I agree. It's just after the Iraqi elections, which may serve to distract from the tremendous success in Iraq. It also comes on the eve of the Patriot Act coming up for renewal (which has been filibustered in the Senate).
Michelle Malkin has an excellent random of blogger reactions. She also notes that people want an investigation of the Bush administration, but not the people who leaked the information. You see, if leaked information harms the Bush administration then you don't have to investigate the leakers. Whatever.
Are we losing our freedoms. No. There are safe guards in place to keep our rights secure (aside from the Constitution and the courts). Is this the slippery slope. No, but we could find ourselves losing our footing if we're not careful.
As much as the NYT would like to take the high road and say they are just letting us know the facts, I doubt their goals are purely altruistic. It doesn't mean shouldn't question how the government goes about collecting information. Indeed, we should always question the government.
Just as we should question everyone who leaks this information.
UPDATE: I added a link to a story on the Senate filibuster of the Patriot Act.
Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.
[...]
While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said.
The article blows things out of proportion early on, but goes on to say the administration has taken great pains to ensure the rights of US citizens are not being violated. It also indicates that this is limited to only to concerns regarding Al Qaeda.
Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States. Usually, though, the government can only target phones and e-mail messages in the United States by first obtaining a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which holds its closed sessions at the Justice Department.
The NYT is a left wing publication who has demonstrated it has an axe to grind with the Bush administration. It suggests our collective asses are in danger of getting reemed by the government. Yet, it also admits that the eavesdropping is limited to international communications (monitoring communications between two locations in the US still requires a warrant). Still, the article raises concerns.
I don't relish the idea of the government monitoring citizens without warrants. At the same time (as the article indicates) it has done some good. We are at war against an enemy that has infiltrated our country. It requires extreme measures. These are dangerous times and we have be sure not only to keep ourselves from giving terrorists enough rope to hang us, but also to keep from giving the government enough rope to hang us.
Hugh Hewitt thinks the NYT has unwittingly given ammo to terrorists. He points to this passage:
The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.
Good point. Hugh also points out that the article contains little useful information (mostly it is just hearsay from anonymous sources).
Real Clear Politics questions the timing of the article. I agree. It's just after the Iraqi elections, which may serve to distract from the tremendous success in Iraq. It also comes on the eve of the Patriot Act coming up for renewal (which has been filibustered in the Senate).
Michelle Malkin has an excellent random of blogger reactions. She also notes that people want an investigation of the Bush administration, but not the people who leaked the information. You see, if leaked information harms the Bush administration then you don't have to investigate the leakers. Whatever.
Are we losing our freedoms. No. There are safe guards in place to keep our rights secure (aside from the Constitution and the courts). Is this the slippery slope. No, but we could find ourselves losing our footing if we're not careful.
As much as the NYT would like to take the high road and say they are just letting us know the facts, I doubt their goals are purely altruistic. It doesn't mean shouldn't question how the government goes about collecting information. Indeed, we should always question the government.
Just as we should question everyone who leaks this information.
UPDATE: I added a link to a story on the Senate filibuster of the Patriot Act.
posted by CT at 12/16/2005 04:15:00 PM
<< Home