The term "wire-tapping" conjures images of police and agents in cheap hotels or nondescript vans wearing headphones and smoking cigarettes, while listening to the private conversations of bad guys, while reel-to-reel tape machines record everything-- to be used later as evidence to seal the doom of the very same bad guys. Sorry for the melodrama.
The point is, wire-tapping requires the physical tapping of a specific line, further requiring someone to listen, and another to supply the room/van with a steady stream of coffee, donuts, and pizza.
Mainstream Media knows full well that this is not what's going on in the President's highly illegal NSA "wire-tapping" scheme to create a Republican police state. But the image fits the story they want to sell. They have no interest in the truth. Likewise, the folks who buy that Loaf of Lies have no interest in becoming themselves personally acquainted with that rarest of flowers... Can you guess? That's right, Truth.
What's really going on is referred to as Data Mining. ECHELON and ABLE DANGER are both fine examples of data mining. Picture, if you will, a nice chilly room filled with computers that monitor "specific" international phone numbers, that-- to make it all the more clear --originate overseas... in foreign countries... not necessarily English speaking nations... folks who don't give a rat's patootie whether or not Jessica and Nick get divorced. These computers respond to key-words, sending up alarms, to words like, Bomb, Nuclear, Suicide, Kill, Los Angeles... Contrary to what media wants us to believe, this government has neither the time, nor desire to "physically" tap and man, the thousands of land lines Liberals and their Media Mouthpieces apoplectically insist is part and parcel of the corrupt Bush White House.
Now, suppose a known Al Qaeda number goes active, and suppose, just suppose that the words "Nuclear" and "L.A." get used in the same sentence within the first few sentences or so of a call that originates from either a foreign nation, or a "Person of Interest" within the U.S.. Do we disconnect and stop listening because we first have to run to, say, two or three levels of lawyers for permission to listen in, not knowing how long the conversation may or may not last? Where is it written that to listen in is illegal? Dem's would have us believe this kind of activity is illegal. But it's not. Also, who's to say the U.S. end of these conversations are U.S. Citizens? Something to think about, and something the Media is not likely to tell you about. After all, it doesn't fit the story they want to sell.
I've covered this topic in a previous post, both the legality of it, as described in the U.S. CODE, and previous examples of Presidents who claimed the very same authority President Bush now claims. I'm not going to re-hash it here, just read my previous post. Both the Mainstream Media and the liberal Politic-Left are either curiously ignorant of certain elements of the U.S. CODE OR deliberately silent concerning certain Historical Precedents... Both Carter and Clinton are guilty of this very Crime, by Executive Order, that Bush is now accused of.
As to the whole 72 hour after-the-fact deal for acquiring a FISA court warrant-- No one is asking what might happen to a case against a would-be bomber if the court refused to justify the eavesdropping, after the fact. I agree with Attorney General Gonzales; these conversations, that may last no more than a minute or two, constitute "hot pursuit" especially if the conversation was flagged for containing a few choice key words. There is no time to get a few lawyers to say "go for it" before we begin to listen in and attempt a trace on the call. Lawyers may yet be the death of us all....
Oh! What was that Shakespeare quote from "Henry VI"?
"The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers"
But I digress. Why stop at 72 hours, when the US CODE gives the Attorney General ONE year.
Just as Katrina spawned all kinds of distortions-- rapes and murders in the Super Dome, ten-thousand deaths --so too is this whole business with this so-called "domestic wiretapping". And to reiterate, just because Dem's, Media, and Moonbats all claim the illegality of Bush's secret program to spy on Americans, doesn't make it illegal. Likewise, what I've written here doesn't make what I've said so. It's incumbent upon you to read and discover the truth for yourself. I can't make you believe the truth, but then that's not my responsibility. My hands are clean by simply pointing you in the right direction. If you continue to believe a lie, that's on your head, not mine.
The real story is the very real acts of Treason committed by the New York Times, but again, that's not a story Media wants to sell.
This post began as a comment at Trucker Philosophy, but damned Halo Scan! They lose far too many of my comments!
1. Unless you have been elected to chair a legislative committee on US Intelligence gathering, are the US Attorney General, Chief of the NSA, or George Bush, you don't know any more about how this program operates than anyone else reading the internet and watching TV. It was only this past week that Congressional Party Leaders were briefed on the subject. It may infact be true that the NSA uses data-mining to select calls for human evaluation, but you don't know.
2. You don't know that the program is legal. Presidents after 1978 when the FISA court was began have not authorized warrantless electronic surveillance, so far as anyone knows. Secondly the FISA statute has never been challenged in court. Any examples of presidential authority and power that you want to claim for precedent should be post 1978. Even the administration seems unclear as to how to justify the program. Some politicians use one standard "Other presidents have..." Others say "The war powers justify it!" Still others say "It's in the constitution.." There is no clear answer to how this program might be viewed by the judicial branch, which would have to be the ultimate arbiter in this situation.
Before claiming a monopoly on truth you might want to be more certain of your footing.
I'd like to welcome BenT back. And I promise to be nice.
If even discussing the way in which we fight this War-on-Terra gives aid and comfort to the enemy I fear for the security of a lot of bloggers. Do you have a legal defense fund?
Also, did you bother to check out my links to the U.S. CODE and both Carter and Clinton's own Executive Orders authorizing the very same policy of warrantless electronic surveillance?
There is precedent for what this President is doing, and millions* of reasons why it should continue.
*If only 10% of the estimated 1,000,000,000 Muslims worldwide advocate Jihad as an acceptable form of "protest", that amounts to 100,000,000 potential terrorists and suicide bombers... Not a particularly comforting number.