Fire in the wire

As the democrats (and some RINOs) continue to scold the Bush adminstration for trying to turn America's telephones into old-fashioned 'party-lines', Mac Ranger points to an article in the NY Sun about the passage of a law in 1994 that allowed the government access to phone records. Called the "Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994" and known as CALEA, it was passed by voice vote in the democrat controlled House and Senate. Such a revelation suggests a bi-partisan effort to snoop.

Here's a very illuminating article about the entire electronic surveillance mess, which contains this paragraph:

The domestic electronic surveillance ball really got rolling under the Clinton administration, with the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). CALEA mandated that the telcos aid wiretapping by installing remote wiretap ports onto their digital switches so that the switch traffic would be available for snooping by law enforcement.

It's prudent to point out what was going on immediately prior to the Act's passage:

1. Saddam was still in power. He had previously tried to assassinate Bush 41, and for that was treated to a cruise missile party at his Mukhabarat headquarters. UNSCOM inspectors had discovered the extent of his pre-war nuke program and were shocked.

2. Ramzi Yousef had recently attempted to topple one of the WTC towers into the other. Had the attack been successful it would have dwarfed 9/11 in scope.

3. Terrorist savant Abdel Rahman, the blind shake, had been thwarted from blowing up the UN building along with a few key bridges and tunnels leading into Manhattan.

The government was apparently beginning to realize that modern threats were more apt to be overheard on the wire rather than via radio or coded diplomatic messages, which the NSA was set up to monitor. The natural tendency was to expand powers to meet and defeat the threat, but the side effect of any such thing erodes individual liberties.

As a society we've gotta collectively decide whether such erosions are worth it. That decision was much easier 100 years ago, but with the advent of mass casualty weapons any decision now requires a fearless population willing to stand up and take a nuclear or biological hit. Some might claim they are, but surely the NIMBY principle comes into play. Matter of fact, it's not a given the Founding Fathers would blindly say no based on the alternative reality created by a terrorist victory, despite the famous quotes from Paine and Franklin.

Therefore, the key is to set up some kind of flexible oversight system where the checks and balances can work without exposing the programs to a network of partisan snipers and without giving the executive branch unfettered power. I suggest the democrats recommend something constructive in that area rather than tooting the impeachment horn. Maybe that would give us a reason to vote for them.

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, AGAIN 5/13/06

It seems certain members of the media and select CIA persons are only just beginning to fight:

During their three-day fact-finding visit, the European Parliament team also met with lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Human Rights First.

NewsMax has learned that the commission also met with a U.S. reporter who claimed to be in touch with "active-duty CIA officers" who were providing information on the extraordinary renditions and the secret prisons because they felt the practice was wrong.

Let's remember, the rendition program was started in the mid 90s under Clinton. Keep that in mind as this story unfolds.

The European commission believes that secret prisons once used in Poland and Romania have been shut down, and is currently investigating a new prison it believes the CIA is using in an unnamed North African country.

Perhaps someone should tell these people who their real enemy is. Perhaps they'll finally realize it when they fall under Sha'ria law.