Allow me to take a moment and echo Titus' sentiments regarding his current "trust levels" of our federal government. We would all do good to remember that it is the same person whom said "if you like your doctor you can keep it" that wears the hat of Commander-in-Chief and makes decisions within the national security council. And it is the same Republicans that claim a budget that saves $23 Billion over 10 years is the epitome of frugality in the face of a 17 Trillion dollar deficit that sit on these select Intel committees. Their collective refusal to adhere to anything resembling Constitutionality could test the fictional boundaries of a shroom fueled Orwellian imagination. I certainly don't think our leaders at the federal level suddenly become wise statesmen simply because the afternoon briefing subject changes from economics to national security. In other words, they're just as capable of acting extra-constitutionally on matters of national security as they clearly and openly do on matters of say, health care. And this further realization, that these people simply cannot be trusted, has been bothering me for some time. I googled "Patriot Act" in our site's search engine and came up with no less than four posts which I authored, all clamoring about the illegality of this domestic meta-data collection. In fact, I specifically questioned the government's use of the Patriot Act as early as 2010, in a post found here (be forewarned, it's primarily about New Deal until the last paragraph).
I'm not sure if you're familiar with a nationally syndicated radio program titled "America Now With Andy Dean." It's got about 2-3 million listeners and airs here after Sean Hannitty. The guy is a talented radio host, but he drove me so insane the other night that I actually called in, and got on the air. The beef? He believed that the collection of meta-data was well worth the civil liberty infringement. His argument (and we had a solid six minute converstaion on air, a lifetime for a single caller), was that when they get a risk "hit" they need that stored meta-data to call upon so they can then go back, take Jihad Johnny's cell number, and reconstruct every call dialed and received in the last X amount of days or weeks. And he's right about one thing, that would make it easier for NSA operators to do their job. But as I argued, so would a general warrant. So would sending a duplicate copy of every email and snail mail parcel straight to Maryland. In fact, installing cameras in every home, car and workplace wold make their job easier too. But what really got my goat was his argument that "well, your cell call history is already tracked by your cell company, it's all in your cell bill every month, so it's already out there." Wtf? I stopped and said, "Andy, you do realize that I voluntarily entered into that tracking as part of my cell phone contract, don't you? Not to mention, T-Mobile doesn't prosecute and execute those charged with a crime." He acknowledged the difference and then moved on to the next caller. Now I had both my sons listen to the radio, live, in the next room and afterwards I told them I want them to remember things like this. That your family voiced opposition to such overreaches, and I told them when your my age, and things have gotten much worse, I want you to tell your peers that it wasn't always like this. I want you to be able to remember a time when this wasn't the norm and understand that we as a free People allowed this to happen (just another fun filled night for the kids at the F.Ryan household).
And if you want really scary, google government "kill list" online. This isn't some whacked out conspiracy theory, this is hard news from Reuters, the NY Times, and CNN. One article, found here, will make the hairs on your arm stand up. Here's how it opens...
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.
A secret kill list, governed by no law - not even a subset of a paragraph from the appendix - which can include American citizens? No, nothing creepy there. Killing terrorists with a drone strike I have no problem with. But as a military operation. There is something down right bone chilling about a group with no names, no records, and no official rules which has the authority to name Americans to a death list. Talk about a star chamber! And that article is from 2011. Oh, I should add, the drone strike which killed that scumbag Al ala-whatever, also killed his 16 year old son. And they weren't on the battlefield, they were at breakfast, in Yemen. I feel compelled to stress, targeting foreign nationals engaged in terror plotting against the US, I'm fine with. But an "officially unofficial" panel with no oversight, no governing rules, no law that it's built upon meeting in secret with just a number 2 pencil and a sheet of paper that can include American names (even dirt bag Americans), that's third world banana republic stuff. Where's the uproar America? Too busy watching Dancing With the Stars? Oh well, maybe next week when the reruns start. That'll be our collective epitaph: "America, forged on the battlefield, lost on the couch."
And before I forget, my previous post might lead one to believe that I was in fact ambivalent about allied spying, specifically on foreign leaders, but I fully understand revelations of such activity has real world negative geopolitical fallout. In other words it's not just embarrassing, it also means (for example) that our next NATO action could perhaps not include German forces, which equals more US troops in harms way all because the German Chancellor doesn't have the political cover to aide an American lead effort because here people are still pissed at us. So I am willing to put that revelation in the plus column for Mr. Snowden. Furthermore, I agree that President Obama insisting Snowden should have brought his concerns "through the proper channels" is laughable at best, and stark raving lunacy at worst.
The bottom line is this - our political leaders made the calculated decision that another attack was more risky for their careers (and I'm sure some of them weren't this callous in their determinations)than was the potential of being caught sanctioning these domestiuc gathering programs.
Ok, so that was my very long winded way of trying to establish my Tea Party, damned near Libertarian, bonifides not just on economic policy, but national security as well. But (and it's a BIG but) I don't understand, and I didn't feel you addressed it directly, why Snowden included in his leaks our efforts to capture Taliban radio transmissions. Why do that? I want the NSA to be actively collecting and disrupting every Taliban communication in the world. I want them attempting to penetrate Iranian emails. And I want them hacking North Korean military cyber depots. I don't have to "choose" all or nothing here. I can condemn the domestic abuses and still fully support the foreign targeting and remain completely consistent. Furthermore, if his leaks were to expose abuses by the powerful (his words), why omit evidence of Chinese, Russian, and Iranian efforts to penetrate our communications? Perhaps such revelations would have given the NSA a little too much public cover for Snowden's liking, I don't know. What I do know is that exposing numbers one and two on my list would have had the exact same impact, spawned the exact same debate, and sent the exact same politicians running for cover, so why include number three? They are supposed to do number three. I want them doing number three (boy am I glad I didn't list foreign signal collection second, or this paragraph would have seemed rather juvenile).
Just please explain to me the justification of his leaking those programs. From what I understand they were separate programs, in separate departments, ran by separate operators, functioning under clearly established precedent well within their original charter, which included oversight. I can connect the dots on omitting Russian and Chinese privacy sins - he wanted somewhere to run and if he outs "everyone" he's got no where to seek asylum - but why leak our foreign signal Intel operations? Why "out" those programs, their capability, their specificity, and the after-action reports on their effectiveness? In terms of the Taliban and Iranian insurgent funding we're not talking about some Soviet era chess match within a Cold War setting. It's a hot, shooting war and our guys are getting blown to bits in a very real, very nasty, very lethal combat role. Leaking information that makes their job even a little harder, just to put a third and unnecessary thumb in the eye of the US, is inexcusable. He could have dropped the first two bombshells with never getting into the targeting of foreign, hostile regimes. And I think it a wholly Constitutional argument to praise his actions on the first two and condemn his action on the third. Likewise, I find it wholly reasonable to condemn the NSA (and their overseers in congress and the White House) on those first two points without chastising them on the third. The problem isn't the signal collection apparatus. The problem is they turned the barrel of that gun inward, on us. Surely you don't want to strip them of the lawful ability and current technology to target foreign hostiles so as to make certain they can never again use it domestically... do you? And if not, how does any American defend Snowden on that third, and crucial, aspect of his leaks?
On a somewhat related note... my brothers, sons and I saw Lone Survivor - AWESOME! A full fledged Bund must see, must own.
No comments:
Post a Comment