Spying, Spying, Everywhere...
posted by Will
President Bush says "Now, my concern has always been that, in an attempt to try to pass a law on something that's already legal, we'll show the enemy what we're doing." First of all, the only opinion that what he's doing is legal comes from ... him! We don't know fully what his administration is doing except what they claim, and they are also claiming that only they may interpret whether it is legal (or constitutional). No checks, no balances.
3 points:
(1) The enemy has always assumed they are being spied on at all times. They change sat phones frequently, they use codes, they share email accounts so they can send messages back and forth without actually transmitting them, they probably use regular mail, or even FedEx. These are not people to whom it has simply not occurred that there might be someone listening at all times. They assume as much, and that is one of the ways their leaders, Bin Laden and Zawahiri for instance, have avoided capture. So, I don't see how writing a law about how and when domestic spying can be engaged in would clue them in on some secret they don't already know. Whatever we could possibly be doing to listen in, they are already assuming we're doing it.
(2) Bush has said, out loud, for the enemy to hear, that we are not listening in on calls entirely within the US. So, couldn't The Enemy simply do that? What if there's a guy in New York and another guy in Los Angeles? Are we incapable of doing anything to track them? The president said as much. That doesn't make me very confident. Why not write a law--and in it, Congress could make that legal, too? But with checks and balances.
(3) The claim continues to be that we only listen in on people with Al Qaida connections. How do we know about anyone without spying on them already? If we're only listening in on people we know are involved, it seems to me that's a pretty weak plan. Why not set standards, legal standards, for suspicion of terrorist involvement that make it possible to make a case that even domestic-to-domestic calls should be tapped? Have a little judicial review of those few cases. Checks and balances.
3 points:
(1) The enemy has always assumed they are being spied on at all times. They change sat phones frequently, they use codes, they share email accounts so they can send messages back and forth without actually transmitting them, they probably use regular mail, or even FedEx. These are not people to whom it has simply not occurred that there might be someone listening at all times. They assume as much, and that is one of the ways their leaders, Bin Laden and Zawahiri for instance, have avoided capture. So, I don't see how writing a law about how and when domestic spying can be engaged in would clue them in on some secret they don't already know. Whatever we could possibly be doing to listen in, they are already assuming we're doing it.
(2) Bush has said, out loud, for the enemy to hear, that we are not listening in on calls entirely within the US. So, couldn't The Enemy simply do that? What if there's a guy in New York and another guy in Los Angeles? Are we incapable of doing anything to track them? The president said as much. That doesn't make me very confident. Why not write a law--and in it, Congress could make that legal, too? But with checks and balances.
(3) The claim continues to be that we only listen in on people with Al Qaida connections. How do we know about anyone without spying on them already? If we're only listening in on people we know are involved, it seems to me that's a pretty weak plan. Why not set standards, legal standards, for suspicion of terrorist involvement that make it possible to make a case that even domestic-to-domestic calls should be tapped? Have a little judicial review of those few cases. Checks and balances.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home