May
14th
2006
NSA Gets Phone Records
I heartily support the NSA monitoring every international call made between a known terrorist (or even a suspected terrorist) abroad and a U.S. resident. That policy just seems to make complete sense, despite what self proclaimed “civil libertarians” say.
But now we learn that the NSA is being given millions of phone records for domestic calls. This in addition to the NSA monitoring of a good chunk of American internet activity.
Where is the outrage among limited-government conservatives?
17 Responses to “NSA Gets Phone Records”
Leave a Reply
note: by commenting, you indicate that you have read and accept all-encompassingly's comment policy. please print it and keep a copy of the document in your wall safe along with your living will or advance directive.
The program allowing the NSA to collect phone records for analysis was passed into law in 1994 by Clinton. It’s fully constitutional, 100% legal, and a none issue.
However, what is being done with the data is yet to be determined.
LDS Patriot is dead-on.
Additionally, limited-government conservatives tend to be logical thinkers, less susceptible to the tiresome tendency of some to hyperventilate over sensational headlines that ultimately are all smoke and no fire. The latest brouhaha over the NSA’s activities, which the MSM would have us believe are part of the increasingly fascist Bush administration’s conspiracy against the American people(!), is yet another lame example of breathless-but-baseless reporting. If not baseless, then at least dishonest in presentation. It’s no wonder, then, that few on the Right are waving arms in the air. If you really need some validation from limited-government types, search out the misguided libertarian bloggers (who are not representative all libertarians, I should stress). I doubt they’ll disappoint.
Rather than wonder why limited-government conservatives aren’t expressing more outrage–Bob Dole, is that you?–the salient question seems to be Where has the common sense of All Encompassingly gone? On a blog that typically celebrates the likes of Ann Coulter (a good thing), I wouldn’t expect to read something that appears to have been directly channeled from Andrew Sullivan. As is the case with A.S. your dislike of Bush seems be coloring your judgment.
Perhaps, this excerpt from a WFB column published last week will help in explaining the phenomenon:
“What is happening to George W. Bush is that dissenters are moving from criticism of him to just plain hostility to him. Swings in the public mood that emphatic aren’t unknown to American history, though these days they are more lacerating because of the diurnal polls that give lapidary attention to wisps of sentiment.”
(http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDgxMDZiODY0NzBjZWQzOThmYmE1YTI2OGQwMzMyYzM=)
this is what the phone records look like. no one is actually looking at them; that would be impossible due to the sheer volume of information. as john hawkins writes:
i don’t have a problem with this program, doug. i think you are having all of these daily kos-esque outbursts lately because you are starting to think nestor kirchner and george bush are the same person, and argentina and the US are facing the same domestic issues.
well….they’re not.
You “heartily support” the earlier eavesdropping because the policy “seems to make complete sense”???
Is that how we pick and choose the the laws the president is expected to follow and those he isn’t (see FISA and the AUMF). I would hope your support of executive office actions is based on more than what “seems to make complete sense.” That’s not exactly how the country has been designed to run (see separation of powers). Something tells me, however, that when a Republican president is in office, that’s about all you need.
This blog is the perfect example of how partisan politics has allowed every idiot to have strong opinions on just about anything.
LSD Patriot and Scruff,
Last I checked there was this one thing in the Constitution about due process, unreasonable search and seizure or some silly language like that which might require a court order before checking phone bills. Oh yeah, the great thing is that the government wasn’t just given these records, it BOUGHT them.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center expressed concern in the following statement:
“It would be one thing if a claim was made that in the name of national security, the government was exercising its subpoena power to demand this information. But if it was merely a commercial transaction, where government was buying the material as if the info was merely a commodity, there’s even less of a justification for that kind of disclosure.â€
Also, the original USA today story had these great quotes:
“’Al-Qaeda is our enemy, and we want to know their plans,’ Bush said before heading to Mississippi to give a speech on Hurricane Katrina relief. He didn’t provide any specifics about the program, however, and walked away without responding to questions from reporters.
“On Capitol Hill, Democrats expressed outrage over the secret project, and some leading Republicans — House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania among them — expressed concern.
“‘Are you telling me tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaeda?’†Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, railed at a morning hearing.â€
Also, Qwest, one company who refused to contract their customers’ privacy away, had to “resist some heavy pressure from the government, even questions about its patriotism or threats to future work with the government.â€
This isn’t about sentiment or polls, it’s about common sense. Kudos to Doug for his criticisms. Then again, I could be one of the 10 million American members of Al-Qaeda, so you may want to report me to the thought police. Then you can go back to your latest new speak novel and relax.
The issue seems to keep getting spun around, but the big question in my mind remains, what is the government to do to prevent additional domestic terror attacks?
Everyone is so upset about these “un-constitutional” tactics, and yet so far, they seem to be working. We’ve had zero domestic terror attacks since 9/11.
I feel that the administration is stuck between having american blood on their hands because of an incompetent and impotent handling of the war on terror and taking serious measures to ensure we eliminate terror threats domestically.
So my question again is, if these tactics with the NSA are so out and out crazy, why is there so little attention paid to reasonable or legal alternative solutions to combating terror domestically??!? The MSM seriously only seems to talk about the “ramifications” and “questions” that have been raised about the NSA phone data collection, but if there are better ways of preventing terror, why isn’t there a ton of attention being paid to it?
Well, bnice, if you were part of Al-Quaeda–and I’m not saying that you are…or that you aren’t–then I’d be glad the authorities were checking your phone records, whether they paid for them or not. I’d hope they’d be checking your internet records, too.
In fact, I’m somewhat cheered to know that the federal government is actually using my money for something useful since it doesn’t happen all that often. I might even drink to it.
Um, and last time I checked, that “one thing in the Constitution about due process, unreasonable search and seizure or some silly language like that”–you’ve combined parts of more more than one thing/amendment in that cheeky phrase, by the way–does not prohibit federal agencies from receiving *voluntarily* provided business records relating to their responsibilities. You seem to have a problem with the idea that the NSA might compel access to such records and then quote the EPCI (which souds suspiciously like ECPI, heh) to signal your opposition to non-compelled government use of the same information. Ah, to subpoena or not to subpoena, that seems to be the question.
If a violation has occurred it is in regards to a statute, not any core Constitutional provision, a very important distinction. The Fourth Amendment is not implicated here. Furthermore, even if it were decided that a statutory violation had occured, Article II of the Constitution arguably may trump it, depending upon whose interpretation you accept. (Personally, I’ll steer clear of Patrick Leahy’s, thanks.) Like all NSA-related controversies of late, this boils down to a debate over the scope of Executive Power with a side-debate over the seriousness of the security risk facing our country.
So, whether or not you support the NSA’s program, at least focus on the appropriate legal arguments. The Constitution has not been interpreted to address this type of non-content surveillance (see Smith v. Maryland); certain statutes, on the other hand, do. In coming weeks I look forward to people like Alberto “dumb tool” Gonzalez (as Doug put it) helping explain this distinction. First stop, USA Today.
Wow. Lots of comments. For some reason I’m not getting email notification anymore of new comments, so I’ll try to respond briefly to each comment thus far.
From LDS Patriot:
I have no idea this is true, either way, I still find the program unpalatable.
Perhaps, but I still think it is wrong and a waste of government resources in the fight against terrorism.
Aye, there’s the rub.
From Scruff:
We disagree as to what common sense consists of.
From my point of view, the government is correct to monitor calls to and from (suspected) terrorists living overseas. I think they step beyond their bounds once they start collecting the phone records of millions of Americans and data mining them. The possibility of abuse is enormous.
And then Scruff, quoting Bill Buckley:
The funny thing is…I didn’t mention Bush in my post at all. I simply took issue with a policy that an executive branch agency is carrying out (even mentioning my support of a similar policy from the same agency).
I have no hostility towards Bush, but I don’t think that the man is deity. Like you and I, he is certainly capable of serious error and gross misjudgment.
And from travis:
If Nestor Kirchner were collecting the phone records of millions of Argentines in the name of “national security” I would also find it wrong. The fact is, these sort of sweeping “soft invasions” of privacy, are something that I would expect from Hugo Chavez, not George Bush.
It is all fine and good that the NSA may be using the information in ways that we are “comfortable with” right now. But what about tomorrow? Or next year? Or in 2009 when President Hillary Rodham “I have your FBI file AND phone records” Clinton is sworn in?
I don’t trust the government. Limited government conservatives, as the very nomenclature would suggest, should be suspect of any expansion of government power.
And Maggie:
Yeah. I’m guessing that is how most people weight policy. They analyze whether the policy is good/bad/effective/useless, etc. utilizing criteria that they believe to be important and relevent. In the end, the policy can “make sense” to implement or not.
Perhaps, although our comments section appear to serve the same purpose.
And finally, bnice.
I think it’s important to clarify something that implicit in bnice’s argument. We hold the government to a different standard. The government is not a private citizen or a business. The government has the power to tax, imprison, and even kill. Hence, we make the government jump through all sorts of hoops in law enforcement, such as obtaining warrants, subpoenas, etc.
What I find most troubling is that all this NSA stuff is being done in the name of “national security” when the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented simply by less bureaucracy. We already had all the pertinent information pre-9/11. The government, “pre-Patriot Act” and “pre-NSA monitoring”, was able to assemble an amazing amount of data on Atta and the other hijackers.
Yet what we have now is a neverending expansion of executive power and an even larger national security bureaucracy. This trend does not give us a better chance at catching terrorists, but instead provides more scenarios for government abuse of power.
Heh. I don’t think bnice would quibble with you. I know I wouldn’t. But this is exactly the point, Scruff. The government is analyzing the phone records of millions of Americans, not just those who are affiliated with al-Qaeda.
In essence, you have reinforced my argument. If the government is tracking a (suspected) terrorist, more power to them! They should look at everything the (suspected) terrorist is doing: phone records, internet records, travel records, library records, etc.
This, however, is not what is happening with the NSA data mining millions of phone records. Hence, bnice’s comment.
Scruff,
You are correct that the issue is not one of constitutionality. Thank you [swallowing pride] for the clarification. I learned something new. However, it seems your nit-pickiness knows no ends, forcing me to rebut at least part of your argument: your first stop to for information regarding this issue in the coming weeks should not be USA Today. Try The Washington Post instead.
briant,
I’ll admit to have been nitpicking back in my days of losing sleep (heh) over Doug’s labelling AG as a “dumb tool,” but I don’t think it’s overzealous to note that the entire premise of someone’s argument is incorrect. Criticism of the NSA would be a lot more credible to me if the Constitution really did contain prohibitions like the post said. Violating statutes is not good, but, in my opinion, violating the Constitution is much worse. It’s not like I’m lashing out over the failure to dot one’s “i’s.” A person can’t just throw around false information–and do so with a funny but snide “last time I checked” kind of line–and then get upset when corrected. Well, unless the person is a Democrat (or so it seems judging by MSM coverage). Lame.
I’m not sure your suggestion to stop by the WaPo first counts as a rebuttal, but I appreciate it nonetheless. Were I actually anyone important, I’d certainly do my best to spread the word. I mentioned USA Today only because some of the quotes in one of the post to which I was responding were published in that “newspaper.”
Doug, I see your point that your opposition to this program doesn’t necessarily hinge on its constitutionality. You just think its bad policy. Pre-9/11, I probably would have agreed with you, too. That said, I consider myself a limited-government conservative who also accepts and supports the government when it’s carrying out its proper duties. Unlike, say, nationalized healthcare, preventing terrorist attacks seems to fit the bill. It’s important to separate necessary government functions with inappropriate overreaching into individual freedom.
You say you’re on board with the government tapping into known terrorists’ communication networks, just not the rest of us. How exactly is that supposed to work? Isn’t it a little naive to think such a distinction would be that simple? Granted, I’m sure Al Queda’s not the most sophisticated group, but not all of its operatives are going to do us the favor of looking like a terrorist. Would that it were. It’d be nice it were as simple as the plot of Team America.
The government failed us on 9/11 in many respects, which is all the more reason for us not to restrict the tools that actually assist in preventing future attacks. The Patriot Act, for example, which solved many of those bureacratic problems you mentioned, has also been derided for the same reasons you now deride this NSA program.
Like you, I don’t trust the government (at least not in performing functions it was not meant to perform), but I also don’t trust the vast majority of politicians who are against this program either. Sure, conservatives are prone to suspect any expansion of government power, but it doesn’t follow that we categorically have to reject all expansions; our nomenclature isn’t meant to signal that kind of approach. Rather, we can suspect, then evaluate and act decide accordingly. Given the choice between the two sides in this debate, I’ll place my trust in the one that authorized the NSA. I know they’re not the equivalent of Jack Bauer–who is?–but they’re as good as we’ve got and seem to be doing a pretty good job. It’s very possible that programs like the one we’re discussing have contributed to AQ’s inability to strike the homeland over the past 5 years.
You’re right that the possibility for abuse exists, yet you’re merely repeating one of the truest of truisms. The possibility of a slippery slope will almost always exist. It’s part of the struggle between order and liberty that has challenged this country from the beginning, consistently requiring us to struggle for the right balance. As I mentioned, a few years ago I would’ve agreed with you that the NSA is on the wrong side of the line. Not anymore. Why? Well, you explained it best:
“…that is how most people weight policy. They analyze whether the policy is good/bad/effective/useless, etc. utilizing criteria that they believe to be important and relevent. In the end, the policy can “make sense†to implement or not.”
To me it makes sense. Which reminds me of my earlier question: Where has the common sense of All Encompassingly gone?
scruff,
when i said nit-picky i should have referred you to your comment:
“you’ve combined parts of more more [sic] than one thing/amendment in that cheeky phrase…”
i am not at all upset about your correction. in fact, i thanked you for it. however, i do think it’s a waste of time to point out insignificant errors in a comment that someone spends 5 minutes writing. I have spared you the wrath of cite-check/spell-check in your posts, and I only expect the same manners from other persons who post. Homework: what’s the difference between reigns and reins?
let me clarify, i meant i thanked scruff for pointing out that constitutionality was not the issue.
Before you all get completely carried away, I’m interested in getting an educated response to my post regarding alternative solutions to NSA phone data collection. I’m pleased that people are interested in attacking or defending this newly discovered program, however, to those attacking I pose the question of what alternative method(s) can you suggest?
get a subpoena and follow the procedure under FISA. to me it seems that the purchase of the records is inefficient because of the millions of numbers that will not be used. it might be interesting to compare the costs of getting a warrant with the FISA secret court to the amount that the NSA paid for these records, not to mention the cost of bad publicity for the GOP amongst privacy advocates.
[...] –Scruff and Maggie, comments, May 2006 [link and link] Dude, you’re obviously not open to a fair appraisal…or you’d be slower to condemn and quicker to study the facts….it would behoove you to know what you are talking about. That’s a problem with your type though, quick to condemn without the facts. [Y]ou choose to put forth no substantive arguement (sic)….I’ll save my replies for a time when you have something intelligent to say. [...]
[...] I’ve blogged about this before. Posted by doug in politics, doug, technology | [...]