The Hysteria Continues at the New York Times
In what can only be termed as "expected" The New York Times published a blisteringly idiotic editorial in response to the USA Today article yesterday that revealed nothing more than what we already know. Here is the Times piece entitled "Ever-Expanding Secret."
Ever since its secret domestic wiretapping program was exposed, the Bush administration has depicted it as a narrow examination of calls made by and to suspected terrorists. But its refusal to provide any details about the extent of the spying has raised doubts. Now there is more reason than ever to be worried — and angry — about how wide the government's web has been reaching.
Time out. First of all it was the Times who broke the story on the NSA program, thereby breaking the law regarding the release of classified material under 18 USC 798. Second of all, of course the administration isn't going to release any further details regarding the program. They'd still like to be able to use the thing instead of scrapping countless thousands of man-hours and dollars in their efforts. I can't believe the audacity of the Times to point out that the administration hadn't been forthright about the program. Does the Times think that the Nazis weren't being fair in not telling anyone about the Enigma machine, or their Final Solution had been started? Please.
According to an article in USA Today, the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting telephone records on tens of millions of Americans with the cooperation of the three largest telecommunications companies in the nation. The scope of the domestic spying described in the article is breathtaking. The government is reported to be working with AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth to collect data on phone calls made by untold millions of customers.
According to the "rules" involved in such investigations, this isn't domestice spying. It's called data-mining. It's no different from what companies do to track consumers, or the IRS does to ensure you've paid every dime you owe. As a matter of fact, if you ask the phone company for a detailed record of all your calls, they can provide you with it. THAT is what the NSA is doing. I'm sure they have a special program that tracks phone numbers, or that they can "plug-in" a number and see what phones "interacted" with that number. I'm sure they have the same thing for e-mail, as well, which would track IP addresses. This isn't spying. Spying implies that this information is secret--only available to you and you alone. It's not. It's available if you know what you're looking for, and you have the means to actually look for it. Privacy nuts have started crawling out of the woodwork, shrieking that this is all wrong. I agree. We shouldn't have to endure this. We shouldn't have to act like this. But we do have to now. As long as our enemy is still out there, and still plotting to kill us, and level of ingenuity has to be introduced to think ahead of them. As it was mentioned during the presidential debates of 2004: We have to be right 100% of the time; our enemy has to be right ONCE.
President Bush has insisted in the past that the government is monitoring only calls that begin or end overseas. But according to USA Today, it has actually been collecting information on purely domestic calls. One source told the paper that the program had produced "the largest database ever assembled in the world."
OK, with this paragraph alone, the Times expects us to believe that the concept of a sleeper cell is a foreign idea to them. (If you're willing to pay for them, the Times has an extensive archive regarding the Lackawanna Six--a sleeper cell in upstate New York.) If our enemy is here in America then we should be looking for them. This, like the original NSA program that was revealed, is a tool in that fight. But it's clear to me that this editorial is a CYA issue for the press. "They did nothing wrong. They reported the news." Yes, they did do something wrong in revealing, yet again, another classified program. When will the press understand that?
The government has stressed that it is not listening in on phone calls, only analyzing the data to look for calling patterns. But if all the details of the program are confirmed, the invasion of privacy is substantial. By cross-referencing phone numbers with databases that link numbers to names and addresses, the government could compile dossiers of what people and organizations each American is in contact with.
Someone cue up the music from 1984, and save the watches because it's getting deep. According to the USA Today story, the NSA isn't requesting access to names, addresses, and any other personal information unless it seems fit to investigate further. And they admit at that point they must obtain a warrant. For the tin-foil wearing moonbats out there, I'm sure that they will go nuts over how much the government knows now. Actually, not much more than they knew back before 11 September. Our pitiful, meaningless lives don't really concern the government, unless, of course, we're working with al Qaeda. Then, we may have some questions to answer.
The phone companies are doing a great disservice to their customers by cooperating. To its credit, one major company, Qwest, refused, according to the article, because it had doubts about the program's legality.
I guess that two things will happen here. If the pattern's to be followed, as it was pointed out by Marcie this morning, with this revelation our enemy will adapt. After the NSA program was revealed by the Times in December of last year, ABC News ran a story about an increase in the sale of cell phones by Middle Eastern-looking people. (I know it's sort of nutter, but not if you think about it. The story was dated January 12, 2006.) Now, when will we see the upswing in Qwest customers in those regions; a response to the program just recently revealed. And just because one company thinks it's illegal doesn't make it true. The administration is running off of the 1979 USSC case of Smith v. Maryland to stand on this program. They're right to do it because that case gives the program it's legality. And if it weren't legal, I doubt the other three companies would have joined in. Their lawyers would have screamed to high heaven.
What we have here is a clandestine surveillance program of enormous size, which is being operated by members of the administration who are subject to no limits or scrutiny beyond what they deem to impose on one another. If the White House had gotten its way, the program would have run secretly until the war on terror ended — that is, forever.
I'm sure the Times would appreciate that. It's a "guaranteed dose of bad news everyday" for them. A soldier stubbing his toe in Fallujah represents a quagmire to the Times. And how can they claim there's no oversight? The Senate Intelligence Committee has been briefed on these programs. It falls to them to do so. I don't care what idiots like Rockefeller tell the press. He told them the same thing when the Times rand the initial story, and he had to relent days later, and admit he did know about it. And why wouldn't it have run the length of the war? Doesn't that make sense? Is the Times--with that last sentence--implying that they're glad this program was exposed? Glad to know our enemies are aware of these programs? Y'know, it's bad enough when Bill Keller tries to justify the breaking of a US law, and the paper defends the leader of the terrorists in Iraq. Now they're basically admitting that they'd rather give our enemy every advantage possible. If these guys had been around in World War II, we'd be speaking German or Japanese by now.
Congress must stop pretending that it has no serious responsibilities for monitoring the situation. The Senate should call back Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and ask him — this time, under oath — about the scope of the program. This time, lawmakers should not roll over when Mr. Gonzales declines to provide answers. The confirmation hearings of Michael Hayden, President Bush's nominee for Central Intelligence Agency director, are also a natural forum for a serious, thorough and pointed review of exactly what has been going on.
I'm sure that the Senate Intelligence Committee will get their wish on this, and the inclusion of Hayden in this paragraph makes me think that the release of this newest NSA program was timed. I think it was timed to disrupt the Hayden confirmation hearings. It's a "gotcha" moment for them; one they were lacking in the confirmation process of Roberts, Alito, Rice, and Gonzales. The Times and the USA Today think they may have just become the harbingers of defeat for Mike Hayden. No offense, but Hayden's had worse. This will be a drop in the bucket for him, and another black eye for the Times.
Most of all, Congress should pass legislation that removes any doubt that this kind of warrantless spying on ordinary Americans is illegal. If the administration finds the current procedures for getting court approval of wiretaps too restrictive, this would be the time to make any needed adjustments.
Ahem. Again, can someone at the Times locate a constitutional attorney so they quit making asses out of themselves. It doesn't matter what Congress does. The passage of a law can't deter the president when he is acting as Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. We went over this when the Times started this NSA beating phenomenon. Congress can't supercede the president. Only the constitution can, which the president answers to under Article II. Section 1 and Section 2 give him his wartime powers. Not even the Supreme Court is willing to step on the president's toes int hat regard. If he feels that such measures are needed, then so be it.
President Bush began his defense of the N.S.A. program yesterday by invoking, as he often does, Sept. 11. The attacks that day firmed the nation's resolve to protect itself against its enemies, but they did not give the president the limitless power he now claims to intrude on the private communications of the American people.
Gee, I wonder why he keeps bringing up 11 September? Maybe because people like those in Congress and those in the MSM have forgotten what happened that day. I don't want to hear the recounted tales that these fools have memorized to puff up their stature ... "I was there that day." ... So was I dumbass. From the start of the whole thing unfolding before my eyes on the TV. I was just as affected as these prima-donnas. I didn't forget why we're in this war.
Yes, I do have a concern or two about the loss of some privacy, but not enough for me to warrant throwing a hysterical fit like the Left has. Nor have I decided to spin this in a much darker light than what it is as the times has. This program is what it is. It's data mining that's no different that what Able Danger was doing. It's not different than what companies do to consumers. This has been being done for years by government organizations like the IRS. For the Left to engage in faux shock and surprise just turns my stomach. They're like the little drama queens that have to be at the center of everything, and won't shut up and go away when they're shown to be irrelevant.
The Times is worse than irrelevant. They're nutter, and like the rest of the Left on this issue, they have no clue.
Publius II
In what can only be termed as "expected" The New York Times published a blisteringly idiotic editorial in response to the USA Today article yesterday that revealed nothing more than what we already know. Here is the Times piece entitled "Ever-Expanding Secret."
Ever since its secret domestic wiretapping program was exposed, the Bush administration has depicted it as a narrow examination of calls made by and to suspected terrorists. But its refusal to provide any details about the extent of the spying has raised doubts. Now there is more reason than ever to be worried — and angry — about how wide the government's web has been reaching.
Time out. First of all it was the Times who broke the story on the NSA program, thereby breaking the law regarding the release of classified material under 18 USC 798. Second of all, of course the administration isn't going to release any further details regarding the program. They'd still like to be able to use the thing instead of scrapping countless thousands of man-hours and dollars in their efforts. I can't believe the audacity of the Times to point out that the administration hadn't been forthright about the program. Does the Times think that the Nazis weren't being fair in not telling anyone about the Enigma machine, or their Final Solution had been started? Please.
According to an article in USA Today, the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting telephone records on tens of millions of Americans with the cooperation of the three largest telecommunications companies in the nation. The scope of the domestic spying described in the article is breathtaking. The government is reported to be working with AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth to collect data on phone calls made by untold millions of customers.
According to the "rules" involved in such investigations, this isn't domestice spying. It's called data-mining. It's no different from what companies do to track consumers, or the IRS does to ensure you've paid every dime you owe. As a matter of fact, if you ask the phone company for a detailed record of all your calls, they can provide you with it. THAT is what the NSA is doing. I'm sure they have a special program that tracks phone numbers, or that they can "plug-in" a number and see what phones "interacted" with that number. I'm sure they have the same thing for e-mail, as well, which would track IP addresses. This isn't spying. Spying implies that this information is secret--only available to you and you alone. It's not. It's available if you know what you're looking for, and you have the means to actually look for it. Privacy nuts have started crawling out of the woodwork, shrieking that this is all wrong. I agree. We shouldn't have to endure this. We shouldn't have to act like this. But we do have to now. As long as our enemy is still out there, and still plotting to kill us, and level of ingenuity has to be introduced to think ahead of them. As it was mentioned during the presidential debates of 2004: We have to be right 100% of the time; our enemy has to be right ONCE.
President Bush has insisted in the past that the government is monitoring only calls that begin or end overseas. But according to USA Today, it has actually been collecting information on purely domestic calls. One source told the paper that the program had produced "the largest database ever assembled in the world."
OK, with this paragraph alone, the Times expects us to believe that the concept of a sleeper cell is a foreign idea to them. (If you're willing to pay for them, the Times has an extensive archive regarding the Lackawanna Six--a sleeper cell in upstate New York.) If our enemy is here in America then we should be looking for them. This, like the original NSA program that was revealed, is a tool in that fight. But it's clear to me that this editorial is a CYA issue for the press. "They did nothing wrong. They reported the news." Yes, they did do something wrong in revealing, yet again, another classified program. When will the press understand that?
The government has stressed that it is not listening in on phone calls, only analyzing the data to look for calling patterns. But if all the details of the program are confirmed, the invasion of privacy is substantial. By cross-referencing phone numbers with databases that link numbers to names and addresses, the government could compile dossiers of what people and organizations each American is in contact with.
Someone cue up the music from 1984, and save the watches because it's getting deep. According to the USA Today story, the NSA isn't requesting access to names, addresses, and any other personal information unless it seems fit to investigate further. And they admit at that point they must obtain a warrant. For the tin-foil wearing moonbats out there, I'm sure that they will go nuts over how much the government knows now. Actually, not much more than they knew back before 11 September. Our pitiful, meaningless lives don't really concern the government, unless, of course, we're working with al Qaeda. Then, we may have some questions to answer.
The phone companies are doing a great disservice to their customers by cooperating. To its credit, one major company, Qwest, refused, according to the article, because it had doubts about the program's legality.
I guess that two things will happen here. If the pattern's to be followed, as it was pointed out by Marcie this morning, with this revelation our enemy will adapt. After the NSA program was revealed by the Times in December of last year, ABC News ran a story about an increase in the sale of cell phones by Middle Eastern-looking people. (I know it's sort of nutter, but not if you think about it. The story was dated January 12, 2006.) Now, when will we see the upswing in Qwest customers in those regions; a response to the program just recently revealed. And just because one company thinks it's illegal doesn't make it true. The administration is running off of the 1979 USSC case of Smith v. Maryland to stand on this program. They're right to do it because that case gives the program it's legality. And if it weren't legal, I doubt the other three companies would have joined in. Their lawyers would have screamed to high heaven.
What we have here is a clandestine surveillance program of enormous size, which is being operated by members of the administration who are subject to no limits or scrutiny beyond what they deem to impose on one another. If the White House had gotten its way, the program would have run secretly until the war on terror ended — that is, forever.
I'm sure the Times would appreciate that. It's a "guaranteed dose of bad news everyday" for them. A soldier stubbing his toe in Fallujah represents a quagmire to the Times. And how can they claim there's no oversight? The Senate Intelligence Committee has been briefed on these programs. It falls to them to do so. I don't care what idiots like Rockefeller tell the press. He told them the same thing when the Times rand the initial story, and he had to relent days later, and admit he did know about it. And why wouldn't it have run the length of the war? Doesn't that make sense? Is the Times--with that last sentence--implying that they're glad this program was exposed? Glad to know our enemies are aware of these programs? Y'know, it's bad enough when Bill Keller tries to justify the breaking of a US law, and the paper defends the leader of the terrorists in Iraq. Now they're basically admitting that they'd rather give our enemy every advantage possible. If these guys had been around in World War II, we'd be speaking German or Japanese by now.
Congress must stop pretending that it has no serious responsibilities for monitoring the situation. The Senate should call back Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and ask him — this time, under oath — about the scope of the program. This time, lawmakers should not roll over when Mr. Gonzales declines to provide answers. The confirmation hearings of Michael Hayden, President Bush's nominee for Central Intelligence Agency director, are also a natural forum for a serious, thorough and pointed review of exactly what has been going on.
I'm sure that the Senate Intelligence Committee will get their wish on this, and the inclusion of Hayden in this paragraph makes me think that the release of this newest NSA program was timed. I think it was timed to disrupt the Hayden confirmation hearings. It's a "gotcha" moment for them; one they were lacking in the confirmation process of Roberts, Alito, Rice, and Gonzales. The Times and the USA Today think they may have just become the harbingers of defeat for Mike Hayden. No offense, but Hayden's had worse. This will be a drop in the bucket for him, and another black eye for the Times.
Most of all, Congress should pass legislation that removes any doubt that this kind of warrantless spying on ordinary Americans is illegal. If the administration finds the current procedures for getting court approval of wiretaps too restrictive, this would be the time to make any needed adjustments.
Ahem. Again, can someone at the Times locate a constitutional attorney so they quit making asses out of themselves. It doesn't matter what Congress does. The passage of a law can't deter the president when he is acting as Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. We went over this when the Times started this NSA beating phenomenon. Congress can't supercede the president. Only the constitution can, which the president answers to under Article II. Section 1 and Section 2 give him his wartime powers. Not even the Supreme Court is willing to step on the president's toes int hat regard. If he feels that such measures are needed, then so be it.
President Bush began his defense of the N.S.A. program yesterday by invoking, as he often does, Sept. 11. The attacks that day firmed the nation's resolve to protect itself against its enemies, but they did not give the president the limitless power he now claims to intrude on the private communications of the American people.
Gee, I wonder why he keeps bringing up 11 September? Maybe because people like those in Congress and those in the MSM have forgotten what happened that day. I don't want to hear the recounted tales that these fools have memorized to puff up their stature ... "I was there that day." ... So was I dumbass. From the start of the whole thing unfolding before my eyes on the TV. I was just as affected as these prima-donnas. I didn't forget why we're in this war.
Yes, I do have a concern or two about the loss of some privacy, but not enough for me to warrant throwing a hysterical fit like the Left has. Nor have I decided to spin this in a much darker light than what it is as the times has. This program is what it is. It's data mining that's no different that what Able Danger was doing. It's not different than what companies do to consumers. This has been being done for years by government organizations like the IRS. For the Left to engage in faux shock and surprise just turns my stomach. They're like the little drama queens that have to be at the center of everything, and won't shut up and go away when they're shown to be irrelevant.
The Times is worse than irrelevant. They're nutter, and like the rest of the Left on this issue, they have no clue.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home