We're Watching You!

I am now officially sick and tired of calls from Congressional leaders, non-profit groups, and mud-slinging politicians to investigate "President Bush's domestic spying program." Completely and utterly sick. So I'm going to set a few facts straight right here and now.

Firstly, next time a "key Congressional leader" protests this program, remember that all key Congressional leaders were repeatedly briefed on the specifics of the program. Anyone who claims they didn't know about it is either a lying bastard or just plain Ollie Northing the issue.

Secondly, previous Presidents, to include former President Clinton, have used the authority to initiate intelligence collection against entities within the United States without a court order. So when you hear Hillary spouting that it's illegal, keep that in mind.

Thirdly, it's not illegal. You may hear that the "wiretaps" were not in compliance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Yes. However, this post isn't in compliance with that Act either, and it's legal. That law doesn't apply in this case -- that doesn't mean the activity is illegal. This program has been approved by the Department of Justice, the Attorney General as well as literally hundreds of lawyers in various government agencies, and subjected to a review every ninety days to ensure that it has remained in compliance with the law. Even the Democrats admit that no law was broken, even as they bash President Bush for not staying within the confines of FISA.

Lastly, and most importantly, the program in question is not "domestic spying." Domestic communications are defined as communications originating and terminating within the United States. This is the same definition of domestic used for domestic flights, domestic mail, domestic commerce, etc. Domestic communications require a court order to be intercepted and analyzed.

The program in question allows the National Security Agency to intercept communications of a known terrorist, not within the United States, even if the terrorist contacts a person located within the boundaries of the United States. Under rules in effect prior to September 11th, if a known terrorist in Afghanistan placed a phone call to New York, the NSA could not intercept and process the phone call. The program in question does nothing more than to correct that.

This national security vulnerability was pointed out by the 9/11 Commission. They specifically criticized the intelligence community for not linking events in the United States to events overseas. What could possibly be more important to analyze than a phone call between a known terrorist and a person located within our borders? Yet prior to 9/11, such phone calls were "protected."

General Hayden was the director of the NSA when the program was established, and has since moved on to become the Deputy Director of National Intelligence. He spoke recently about this program, and I strongly urge everyone to read his speech. There is no one who knows this program better than General Hayden. For those who won't follow the link, I'll quote a few choice sections:

NSA has an existential problem. In order to protect American lives and liberties, it has to be two things: powerful in its capabilities, and secretive in its methods. And we exist in a political culture that distrusts two things most of all: power and secrecy.... Look, this is not unlike things that happened in other areas. Prior to September 11th, airline passengers were screened in one way. After September 11th, we changed how we screen passengers. In the same way, okay, although prior to September 11th certain communications weren't considered valuable intelligence, it became immediately clear after September 11th that intercepting and reporting these same communications were in fact critical to defending the homeland. Now let me make this point. These decisions were easily within my authorities as the director of NSA under and executive order; known as Executive Order 12333, that was signed in 1981, an executive order that has governed NSA for nearly a quarter century.... I testified in open session to the House Intel Committee in April of the year 2000. At the time, I created some looks of disbelief when I said that if Osama bin Laden crossed the bridge from Niagara Falls, Ontario to Niagara Falls, New York, there were provisions of U.S. law that would kick in, offer him protections and affect how NSA could now cover him. At the time, I was just using this as some of sort of stark hypothetical; 17 months later, this is about life and death.... You know, the 9/11 commission criticized our ability to link things happening in the United States with things that were happening elsewhere. In that light, there are no communications more important to the safety of this country than those affiliated with al Qaeda with one end in the United States. The president's authorization allows us to track this kind of call more comprehensively and more efficiently. The trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant, but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve al Qaeda or one of its affiliates.... Let me talk for a few minutes also about what this program is not. It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about.... So let me make this clear. When you're talking to your daughter at state college, this program cannot intercept your conversations. And when she takes a semester abroad to complete her Arabic studies, this program will not intercept your communications.... Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such....

Labels: domestic spying, nsa, privacy

Permalink

God Says MLK Was Wrong

New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin (left in photo) spoke today about Martin Luther King, Jr. Before I tell you what he said of the great man, let me quote the most famous paragraph from his "I Have A Dream" speech:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

In summary, Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed that one day people would stop thinking in terms of black and white, and instead consider each person on his own individual merits.

Mayor Ray Nagin, who is black, spoke today to honor this great man, and to show how little of his dream has been accomplished. Let me quote his great speech, which does not rise to the caliber of MLK's epic prose:

It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans — the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans. This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be.

That's right. The mayor says white people need to move back North, because God wants black people to live in New Orleans. God obviously doesn't believe in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream, because the first thing God thinks when he sees a white man in New Orleans is "Get that honky outta my city!" Hey, don't blame me. I didn't elect him.

Of course, God has told Ray Nagin much more than his opinions on white people living in the South. For example, God told Ray Nagin that he is a Democrat. This is fortunate, because Ray Nagin is also a Democrat. Allow me to quote his memorial speech once more:

Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country. Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses.

This is the same mayor who said in an October town hall meeting "How do I make sure New Orleans is not overrun with Mexican workers?'" I guess God gave him the answer: only let blacks into the city.

Labels: racism

Permalink

The Point Of Freedom Is To Deny It To Those You Hate

Has anyone been following the Gay Marriage Ban that has been progressing through Virginia? It looks like it will be put before voters in a referendum in November. Just to clarify, Virginia already bans same-sex marriages; this bill is intended to prevent couples married in other states from having any legal status in Virginia.

Supporters say they aren't trying to discriminate against homosexuals, but rather preserve marriage. I don't understand that. I'm not homosexual, and I'm married. Were homosexuals allowed to be married, I don't see how my family would fall apart. Nothing would change for anyone, except homosexuals. Why should I be against them enjoying the same legal benefits that I enjoy?

Del. Kathy J. Byron (R-Lynchburg) is one of the amendments main drivers. Tell me, does this sound like someone who has a good handle on their own lifestyle choices: "Marriage is much more than just two people sharing a committed relationship. By changing the definition of marriage, the family, too, would be redefined, ultimately destroying the traditional family. And if the traditional structure of family no longer matters, what is marriage for?" She is assuming that allowing two women to marry will mean that no women will marry or raise families. Wrong, Kathy, some of us are pretty confident that the human race will survive if people are allowed to choose who they have sex with.

The main opposition, strangely enough, isn't coming from those who support gay marriages. The opposition is coming from legislators afraid that straight couples in non-traditional relationships may be impacted. They worry the bill, which disallows any rights to unmarried non-family members, would impact unmarried couples right to make health care decisions, and even reduce protection to unmarried victims of domestic violence.

What's wrong with this picture? Opponents of the bill are saying they like the general idea, but they worry that straight people might be affected? Is there no one left who believes that each American should be free to pursue his own happiness, in his own way, without government interference? When can we finally kick Uncle Sam out of our bedrooms?

Phinky made an excellent point on Ignorant Hussy. In the aptly-named Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Virginia law prohibiting interracial couples who married in other states from living as husband and wife in Virginia. If I may quote from the decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

If you don't see a relationship between this bit of history and the current debate, perhaps you should read up on the arguments used to support bans on interracial marriages in the last century.

Labels: homosexuality, personal freedoms

Permalink

Truth and Lies in E-mail

I got one of those e-mails today that tried to justify staying in Iraq. While I agree that we should stay, I don't support the use of fuzzy math to pull the wool over peoples' eyes. Here's the e-mail I received:

Subject: STATISTICS

Interesting thought for the day: - Gotta love the logic.

If you consider that there have been average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.

The rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington D.C

In God We Trust

(All typos from the original)

It doesn't take a genius to see this was rapidly thrown together by someone who didn't care to check statistics. The given numbers show not the firearm death rate for Iraq, but the overall death rate including accidents. Even then, if you do the division you'll find the stated numbers come out to 1320 per 100,000 over the 22 month period, or 720 per 100,000 over a one-year period.

Of course, it's not fair to add in the non-combat deaths, nor is it really fair to include deaths from the "major combat" phase of operations. After all, we're trying to compare the cost of supporting peace and democracy in Iraq, not the cost of the overall war. We can't change the past, but we can consider the future. So how many Soldiers are dying in Iraq from combat?

According to casualties.org, a mildly anti-war site, there have been 1,604 hostile deaths since the end of major combat, a period of 141 weeks (April 9th 2003 through Dec 17th 2005). And although the number of troops was higher during major combat, and there has been talk of increasing troops strengths back up, the baseline for US troops in Iraq has been 138,000. So, when I do the math I get a hostile death rate of 428.65 per 100,000 troops, per year.

You may have seen statistics that the DC area saw a record 466 homicides last year. Of course, that's the DC area -- Washington DC itself saw a slight decline last year, with only 194 homicides. With a population of 572,000, Washington has a homicide rate of 33.92 per 100,000 residents, per year.

Net result: Your odds of being shot during a one-year tour of duty in Iraq are approximately ten times your odds of being shot in Washington DC during the same time period. A man who lives in Washington DC his entire life, therefore, is far more likely to be killed than a Soldier who deploys to Iraq for a year.

Of course, we can fudge the numbers further if we get into squishy math. Most of the Soldiers deployed to Iraq are men, aged 18-25. The vast majority of homicides in DC are men in the same age group, but our death rate has factored in little children and old ladies. But I'm not trying to split hairs or reach a magic number. I just want to illustrate, without making up numbers, that Iraq is not the den of death that Zarqawi wants Americans to think it is. It's not Vietnam, where in 1968, the death rate was roughly 2894.74 per 100,000 Soldiers, per year.

Oh, and in case you think it's time to leave Washington, Marion Barry was robbed today, at gunpoint. What do you think he did? According to the Washington Post, this was his statement:

"To this young man who did this to me, I have no animosity," Barry said. "I don't even want you prosecuted. I love you. Give yourself up. Call the police. Let them know that you engage in these activities. I will do all to advocate non-prosecution."

Labels: dc, iraq

Permalink