MarcBulger
01-20-2006, 11:51 AM
DOMESTIC SPYING: Let's get a grip on those "certain Americans"
By Jonah Goldberg
01/16/2006
My favorite scene in the movie comedy "The Jerk" is when Navin Johnson (played by Steve Martin) is being stalked by a serial killer who rifles through the phone book and blindly picks his victims.
It reminds me of the ongoing case of the vapors contracted by critics of President Bush's program of spying on "certain Americans." That's how Dan Abrams of MSNBC, for one, refers to a handful of people who are allegedly on al-Qaida's speed dial and have been in contact with terrorists overseas.
At first, I thought this NSA story was a big deal on the merits. I still think that, in a perfect world, the White House would try to get the laws it needs from Congress. Still, after 9/11, Congress declared that "the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism" and authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against al-Qaida. That strikes me as ample justification for tapping phone calls between al-Qaida associates in Cleveland and Cairo.
Now I'm beginning to think this is just the latest in anti-Bush hype. The New York Times, which launched this "scandal," has been releasing a stream of articles, editorials and op-ed articles as if the nation were up in arms over what some hotter heads believe to be an impeachable offense. James Risen, the Times reporter who uncovered the spying program and has a book out about the "secret history" of Bush's anti-terrorism efforts, sounds like he's already cleared space on his mantle for his Pulitzer, Profiles in Courage and Nobel prizes.
Here's what happened: After 9/11, authorities found a bunch of e-mail addresses and phone numbers in the phones and computers of confirmed terrorists. They tracked down those leads. Most of the people the NSA started eavesdropping on - about 7,000 - lived overseas, and their phone calls were to other foreigners living abroad. But, according to Risen's book, "about 500 people" living in the U.S. who were in contact with suspected terrorists had their communications tapped. As the Weekly Standard recently noted, this constitutes "1.7 ten-thousandths of 1 percent of the U.S. population."
What makes this bout of St. Vitus' maniacal dancing seem so opportunistic is that after 9/11, we heard constantly about the need to be more flexible and creative. The 9/11 commission's chief complaint was that authorities suffered from a lack of imagination when it came to terrorism. Even with warrants issued by the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, the National Security Agency usually had to erase the "American" side of the conversation between suspected terrorists before handing them over to the FBI.
Most Americans think that sort of thing is crazy. But, to keep the frenzy alive, we talk about spying on "certain Americans." In reality, we're trying to stop barbarians from killing "certain Americans."
Copyright Tribune Media Sergices
E-mail: JonahsColumn@aol.com
By Jonah Goldberg
01/16/2006
My favorite scene in the movie comedy "The Jerk" is when Navin Johnson (played by Steve Martin) is being stalked by a serial killer who rifles through the phone book and blindly picks his victims.
It reminds me of the ongoing case of the vapors contracted by critics of President Bush's program of spying on "certain Americans." That's how Dan Abrams of MSNBC, for one, refers to a handful of people who are allegedly on al-Qaida's speed dial and have been in contact with terrorists overseas.
At first, I thought this NSA story was a big deal on the merits. I still think that, in a perfect world, the White House would try to get the laws it needs from Congress. Still, after 9/11, Congress declared that "the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism" and authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against al-Qaida. That strikes me as ample justification for tapping phone calls between al-Qaida associates in Cleveland and Cairo.
Now I'm beginning to think this is just the latest in anti-Bush hype. The New York Times, which launched this "scandal," has been releasing a stream of articles, editorials and op-ed articles as if the nation were up in arms over what some hotter heads believe to be an impeachable offense. James Risen, the Times reporter who uncovered the spying program and has a book out about the "secret history" of Bush's anti-terrorism efforts, sounds like he's already cleared space on his mantle for his Pulitzer, Profiles in Courage and Nobel prizes.
Here's what happened: After 9/11, authorities found a bunch of e-mail addresses and phone numbers in the phones and computers of confirmed terrorists. They tracked down those leads. Most of the people the NSA started eavesdropping on - about 7,000 - lived overseas, and their phone calls were to other foreigners living abroad. But, according to Risen's book, "about 500 people" living in the U.S. who were in contact with suspected terrorists had their communications tapped. As the Weekly Standard recently noted, this constitutes "1.7 ten-thousandths of 1 percent of the U.S. population."
What makes this bout of St. Vitus' maniacal dancing seem so opportunistic is that after 9/11, we heard constantly about the need to be more flexible and creative. The 9/11 commission's chief complaint was that authorities suffered from a lack of imagination when it came to terrorism. Even with warrants issued by the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, the National Security Agency usually had to erase the "American" side of the conversation between suspected terrorists before handing them over to the FBI.
Most Americans think that sort of thing is crazy. But, to keep the frenzy alive, we talk about spying on "certain Americans." In reality, we're trying to stop barbarians from killing "certain Americans."
Copyright Tribune Media Sergices
E-mail: JonahsColumn@aol.com