The Patriot Act, NSA bugging of international phone calls, and torture
... are good examples of what the senate should be working to keep, not end. We are at war, and that's not supposed to be pretty. But if you actually look at the Patriot Act, the NSA's actions, and what now passes for torture in the U.S., they're all pretty tame. But they could still prove very useful in our war against Islamic extremism.
1. As I recall, the Patriot Act is controversial in that it allows the feds to get library records without a warrant, and search people's homes without a warrant obtained from a grand jury (but with a warrant from a federal judge instead), and some other, similar things. We are at war for crying out loud. Ask yourself: do you want to risk being blown up by a terrorist, or do you want to let the feds search people's library records? I think there are some levels of privacy we, as a nation, are willing to forego for the sake of national security. Then again, if you don't like the Patriot Act, and you're a Hollywood producer or scriptwriter, you could always make up stuff about it and repeat it ad nauseum on tv and in movies in a setting where you don't have to worry about being criticized for inaccuracy, because hey, it's just a show, right? Except that all the ignorant people who see the show will know nothing about the Patriot Act except that they saw an innocent guy on tv get hauled off by the feds and thrown in jail for the rest of his life, all because of the Patriot Act. But hey, it's just a show, right? Oh, and it seems that half of the senate is among those ignorant people.
2. The NSA apparently listened in on international phone calls between U.S. citizens in the U.S. and suspected al Qaeda members overseas. This is good news, if it is news at all. I would be very worried if the NSA weren't listening to international phone calls between al Qaeda and anyone in the U.S. who is talking to al Qaeda. Is this a separation of powers issue? Is the NY Times suggesting that the CIA listen to international phone calls between al Qaeda and folks stateside? The FBI maybe? No, I guess the NYT and the ACLU, and all the rest of the usual suspects would rather we respect the natural, God-given rights of terrorists to plot our destruction in private, away from the prying ears of Unca' Sam.
3. Torture apparently consists of wrapping a prisoner's head in a wet towel, which somehow makes the prisoner think he's drowning. Sounds to me like the prisoner is just plain dumb, but maybe it really is very scary. Like the "torture" technique of hooking up wires to the fingers and perhaps other body parts of prisoners: scary as it may be, if he's not actually hurt, how is it torture? Rush Limbaugh infamously described what happened at Abu Ghraib as similar to a fraternity hazing. He was right. Now being forced to listen to loud rap is being called "torture." I guess college freshman all across America are being tortured every fall, until they can get a new roommate or move off campus. As much as I can sympathize with this definition of torture, and as much as I hate Eminem's recordings, I can't help but think that just about any loud noise would be preferable to being fed feet first into a wood-chipper, or having my wife raped and my children murdered in front of me, or having my head slowly sawed off with a dull knife. If you want to know the difference between the Amnesty International definition of torture and the traditional definition of torture, watch the Saddam trial. Amnesty International's definition is used by Saddam and his half-brother Ibrahim (or whatever his name is) when they accuse their American captors of torturing them: hard beds, bad cigarettes. Real torture is what Saddam and his cronies did to Iraqis they thought were opposing them: feeding the feet first into wood-chippers, or raping their wives and murdering their children in front of them, etc. Remember that next time Amnesty International complains that the terrorists in Gitmo aren't getting the right study helps with their free Korans, or that their rice pilaf was cold, or that their delousing tickled, and caused them to question their sexuality, or whatever asinine accusation they come up with next. As for John McCain's grandstanding, it's reprehensible, because he knows better. Same with Murtha: they're both pigs, interested only in political gain, with no concern for the overall well-being of their country.
Again, we are at war. That's neither easy nor a small thing. Anyone who tries to make war nice and civilized is not to be trusted. War is civilized when it is effective - the quicker one country wins the war, the sooner there is peace, and the fewer the lives that are lost. Those who would decrease our combat effectiveness or our ability to gather the intelligence necessary to defend ourselves would have us lose... or have the war drag on and on. To win and win quickly is by far the best option.
NOTE: For further (and better researched) reading on the subject of the NSA's tapping of the phones of terror suspects, look here.
SRS
1. As I recall, the Patriot Act is controversial in that it allows the feds to get library records without a warrant, and search people's homes without a warrant obtained from a grand jury (but with a warrant from a federal judge instead), and some other, similar things. We are at war for crying out loud. Ask yourself: do you want to risk being blown up by a terrorist, or do you want to let the feds search people's library records? I think there are some levels of privacy we, as a nation, are willing to forego for the sake of national security. Then again, if you don't like the Patriot Act, and you're a Hollywood producer or scriptwriter, you could always make up stuff about it and repeat it ad nauseum on tv and in movies in a setting where you don't have to worry about being criticized for inaccuracy, because hey, it's just a show, right? Except that all the ignorant people who see the show will know nothing about the Patriot Act except that they saw an innocent guy on tv get hauled off by the feds and thrown in jail for the rest of his life, all because of the Patriot Act. But hey, it's just a show, right? Oh, and it seems that half of the senate is among those ignorant people.
2. The NSA apparently listened in on international phone calls between U.S. citizens in the U.S. and suspected al Qaeda members overseas. This is good news, if it is news at all. I would be very worried if the NSA weren't listening to international phone calls between al Qaeda and anyone in the U.S. who is talking to al Qaeda. Is this a separation of powers issue? Is the NY Times suggesting that the CIA listen to international phone calls between al Qaeda and folks stateside? The FBI maybe? No, I guess the NYT and the ACLU, and all the rest of the usual suspects would rather we respect the natural, God-given rights of terrorists to plot our destruction in private, away from the prying ears of Unca' Sam.
3. Torture apparently consists of wrapping a prisoner's head in a wet towel, which somehow makes the prisoner think he's drowning. Sounds to me like the prisoner is just plain dumb, but maybe it really is very scary. Like the "torture" technique of hooking up wires to the fingers and perhaps other body parts of prisoners: scary as it may be, if he's not actually hurt, how is it torture? Rush Limbaugh infamously described what happened at Abu Ghraib as similar to a fraternity hazing. He was right. Now being forced to listen to loud rap is being called "torture." I guess college freshman all across America are being tortured every fall, until they can get a new roommate or move off campus. As much as I can sympathize with this definition of torture, and as much as I hate Eminem's recordings, I can't help but think that just about any loud noise would be preferable to being fed feet first into a wood-chipper, or having my wife raped and my children murdered in front of me, or having my head slowly sawed off with a dull knife. If you want to know the difference between the Amnesty International definition of torture and the traditional definition of torture, watch the Saddam trial. Amnesty International's definition is used by Saddam and his half-brother Ibrahim (or whatever his name is) when they accuse their American captors of torturing them: hard beds, bad cigarettes. Real torture is what Saddam and his cronies did to Iraqis they thought were opposing them: feeding the feet first into wood-chippers, or raping their wives and murdering their children in front of them, etc. Remember that next time Amnesty International complains that the terrorists in Gitmo aren't getting the right study helps with their free Korans, or that their rice pilaf was cold, or that their delousing tickled, and caused them to question their sexuality, or whatever asinine accusation they come up with next. As for John McCain's grandstanding, it's reprehensible, because he knows better. Same with Murtha: they're both pigs, interested only in political gain, with no concern for the overall well-being of their country.
Again, we are at war. That's neither easy nor a small thing. Anyone who tries to make war nice and civilized is not to be trusted. War is civilized when it is effective - the quicker one country wins the war, the sooner there is peace, and the fewer the lives that are lost. Those who would decrease our combat effectiveness or our ability to gather the intelligence necessary to defend ourselves would have us lose... or have the war drag on and on. To win and win quickly is by far the best option.
NOTE: For further (and better researched) reading on the subject of the NSA's tapping of the phones of terror suspects, look here.
SRS
posted by weblogbob83 at 1:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home