America’s Own Wiretapping Scandal, or Is It Even a Scandal?
Korea has had a recent wiretapping scandal and now America has it’s own wiretapping scandal, or should we consider it a necessary provision to prevent future terrorist attacks in America? I have been wondering how the US media and their Democratic allies would down play the recent success of the Iraqi elections and today I got my answer. After the election that drew an amazing 70% turn out, I figured the Democrats would complain about 30% of the population being disenfranchised voters in order to down play the election. Instead they were even more clever.
They launched a story about domestic spying that was uncovered over a year ago by the New York Times. They have been holding on to this story for over a year and have been waiting for the right moment to drop it. The NY Times alleges that they held on to the story this long at the urging of the Bush administration, but now they just happen to publish this story right after the Iraqi election and the upcoming vote to renew the Patriot Act. Coincidence, I think not. With so much success and buzz coming from the Iraqi elections the media and their Democratic allies needed something to cloud the buzz and change the subject; so they launched this story. Plus it puts the supporters of the Patriot Act in a difficult position to vote for the continuation of the act.
What is sad is that the media is implying that the wiretapping is illegal when in fact it is legal and President Bush followed all the appropriate guidelines for domestic spying:
The official said that, since October 2001, the program has been renewed more than three dozen times. Each time, the White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of the program, the official said. Bush then signed the authorizations.
During the reviews, government officials have also provided a fresh assessment of the terrorist threat, showing that there is a catastrophic risk to the country or government, the official said.
“Only if those conditions apply do we even begin to think about this,” he said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the intelligence operation.
“The president has authorized NSA to fully use its resources ¿ let me underscore this now ¿ consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution to defend the United States and its citizens,” the official said, adding that congressional leaders have also been briefed more than a dozen times.
The Bush administration did not break the law and the NY Times article did not even say the Bush administration broke the law. The US President can authorize the domestic wiretapping only if a threat of a catastrophic terrorist attack is possible. Bush authorized the wiretapping in October of 2001 right after 9/11. I would say the risk of another terrorist attack was very high and the President responded accordingly. Plus he informed the Senate Intelligence Committee which is headed by a democrat Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) which did nothing to stop the domestic spying. How come Senator Rockefeller’s name and the Democrats responsibility in this issue is not spread all over the news?
Before you become concerned about the NSA listening in on your conversations with your significant other keep in mind that the NSA was only spying on suspected terrorists making phone calls or e-mails abroad not internally within America. Warrants were issued for phone calls and e-mails that were made domestically:
The surveillance, disclosed in Friday’s New York Times, is said to allow the agency to monitor international calls and e-mail messages of people inside the United States. But the paper said the agency would still seek warrants to snoop on purely domestic communications ¿ for example, Americans’ calls between New York and California.
So basically if you aren’t making phone calls to suspected terrorists in let’s say Egypt you don’t need to worry about the NSA wiretapping your conversation.
The NSA requested these powers after 9/11 because some of the Al-Qaida hijackers based in San Diego communicated with their superiors abroad through phone and e-mail and the federal authorities were forced by law to not monitor such conversations. If the NSA had picked up on these phone calls and e-mails from San Diego before 9/11 the whole tragedy could have been prevented.
Intelligence officials are even saying that the wiretapping powers prevented one publicized terrorist attack to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge:
Iyman Faris, a/k/a Mohammad Rauf, 34, of Columbus, Ohio, was charged in a two-count criminal information filed under seal in the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, on May 1, 2003. Faris pleaded guilty to the charges in the criminal information on the same day. The charges and plea agreement were unsealed today.
Faris, a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Kashmir, faces a maximum of 20 years in prison and fines of up to $500,000 at his sentencing, currently scheduled for Aug. 1, 2003.
In court documents accompanying the plea agreement, Faris admitted casing a New York City bridge for al Qaeda, and researching and providing information to al Qaeda regarding the tools necessary for possible attacks on U.S. targets.
This guy pleaded guilty to organizing an Al-Qaida terrorist attack and was caught due to the NSA’s ability to wiretap. What I find interesting about this, is that the same people now complaining about civil liberties violations would be the same people criticizing the Bush administration if they did nto prevent this thwarted terrorist attack on the Brooklyn Bridge. We know that the powers given to the NSA prevented one terrorist attack, but how many other attacks were foiled that we don’t know about?
However, playing politics and selling books is more important than national security. That is right this is also about selling books. The author of the NY Times article is releasing a book next month and the article is an actual excerpt from the book. How can any reasonable person think that this the release of this article is not based on politics and selling books? How can this all be a coincidence?
Some may remember the recent wiretapping scandal that happened here in Korea. This scandal involved the Korean CIA wiretapping for political reasons. There has been no evidence that any of the wiretapping done by the Bush Administration was done for political purposes. There is no evidence that Bush was wiretapping John Kerry for example. The wiretapping was done for national security yet opponents to the wiretapping are opposed due to political reasons not civil liberties.
This article has already had the effect of delaying the passage of the Patriot Act that the Democrats are currently filibustering plus no one is talking about the Iraqi elections anymore. It is amazing to me that a big chunk of the media and a political party wants the US to lose the war in Iraq and set conditions for another terrorist attack in America in order to return to power politically.
With all this said, if you are still worried about losing your civil liberties, remember the only civil liberty you are losing is your right to communicate freely with terrorists. I don’t know about you, but this is one right I don’t mind giving up.
