On things done in the States
Feb. 6th, 2006 02:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThere've been more than a few words written about the NSA's non-FISA approved wiretaps.
Forgetting the legality of them, for the moment (the question the Administration is raising is one of presidential power, we'll come back to this) because that's a different question from the effctiveness of them (which is different from the effect, we may come back to that too, but it's probably grist for another post).
Wiretaps can be goldmines. They are also labor intensive. Many years ago I was whored out to a three-letter agency to translate a bunch of international wiretap recordings. Boring. Really boring. I did this for two-weeks straight. The first problem, I only spoke two of the languages in use (I think there were four, but it might have been more. The region in which the far end of the conversation took place is a family of languages I know nothing about, and I might infer the tap included calls which never "entered" the U.S.), the second, in those eighty-plus hours of tape I listened to, was a lot of conversation about laundry, where to go for dinner, and the like.
Could it have been code? Yep. Which meant I had to write it all up, index it to the tape and file duplicate copies, one master, and one attached to the tape.
That was one investigation. It was the fruit of months of wiretaps (or at least weeks) and condensed, so I could go through it. It took my effort, to translate, and then someone else's effort to look at my translations, compare that to what was known about the subjects and then decide what it all meant.
I have no idea if it was ever useful.
Multiply that by thousands, and you have the NSA taps.
It's like taking a shotgun to blow the candles on a birthday cake. If you get close enough, you can hit some, but you'll miss most; and the cake will be pretty much ruined.
Step back a bit, and you'll probably miss the candles (and the cake).
In either case something a bit more discriminating would better serve.
As to power, presidential power, the White House is arguing that the FISA statute is unconstitutional, sort of. The crux of the argument is that in a "time of war," the Congress has no constitutional authority to limit the president in it's prosecution. This is a scary doctrine. Not only because it completely upsets the checks and balances which make the system work, but because one of the quirks of the constitution is that the President makes treaties, and wars are ended with treaties. If we are at war with, "terrorism" then the only person who can declare it over, is the president. In theory the view of powers the White House is espousing would allow the president to approve the budget, in those portions which are "essential" to the war effort.
Since the White House got legislation passed which allows the Director of Homeland Security to ignore any law, regulation, or rule, which interferes with the mission to secure the borders, and the recent request of the DoJ to the State of Arizona to allow the Arizona Secratary of State to suspend elections, pretty much at whim... one might be forgiven for becoming a "nutbar conspiracy theorist," and wondering if this might be a test for things which were whispered about before the last election (what would happen if a, "credible," terrorist threat were to arrive just before an election?).
Also this week Newsweek reports that, "a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States.
Not that he could allow a cop/federal agent to shoot someone who posed an immediate threat to the lives of others, but suspects. You know, like de Menezes. We all know how well that worked. The guy did go on to say, "the president would be on less solid legal ground were he to order the killing of a terror suspect in the United States who was not actively preparing an attack.
Not that such an authorization would be, ipso facto illegal, just less solid than if the guy were shown to be preparing (not carrying out, preparing) an attack. Of course that will be cold comfort for the families of the de Menezes of the world, who will have to accept the deaths of their families as a small personal sacrifice for the greater good.
Forgetting the legality of them, for the moment (the question the Administration is raising is one of presidential power, we'll come back to this) because that's a different question from the effctiveness of them (which is different from the effect, we may come back to that too, but it's probably grist for another post).
Wiretaps can be goldmines. They are also labor intensive. Many years ago I was whored out to a three-letter agency to translate a bunch of international wiretap recordings. Boring. Really boring. I did this for two-weeks straight. The first problem, I only spoke two of the languages in use (I think there were four, but it might have been more. The region in which the far end of the conversation took place is a family of languages I know nothing about, and I might infer the tap included calls which never "entered" the U.S.), the second, in those eighty-plus hours of tape I listened to, was a lot of conversation about laundry, where to go for dinner, and the like.
Could it have been code? Yep. Which meant I had to write it all up, index it to the tape and file duplicate copies, one master, and one attached to the tape.
That was one investigation. It was the fruit of months of wiretaps (or at least weeks) and condensed, so I could go through it. It took my effort, to translate, and then someone else's effort to look at my translations, compare that to what was known about the subjects and then decide what it all meant.
I have no idea if it was ever useful.
Multiply that by thousands, and you have the NSA taps.
It's like taking a shotgun to blow the candles on a birthday cake. If you get close enough, you can hit some, but you'll miss most; and the cake will be pretty much ruined.
Step back a bit, and you'll probably miss the candles (and the cake).
In either case something a bit more discriminating would better serve.
As to power, presidential power, the White House is arguing that the FISA statute is unconstitutional, sort of. The crux of the argument is that in a "time of war," the Congress has no constitutional authority to limit the president in it's prosecution. This is a scary doctrine. Not only because it completely upsets the checks and balances which make the system work, but because one of the quirks of the constitution is that the President makes treaties, and wars are ended with treaties. If we are at war with, "terrorism" then the only person who can declare it over, is the president. In theory the view of powers the White House is espousing would allow the president to approve the budget, in those portions which are "essential" to the war effort.
Since the White House got legislation passed which allows the Director of Homeland Security to ignore any law, regulation, or rule, which interferes with the mission to secure the borders, and the recent request of the DoJ to the State of Arizona to allow the Arizona Secratary of State to suspend elections, pretty much at whim... one might be forgiven for becoming a "nutbar conspiracy theorist," and wondering if this might be a test for things which were whispered about before the last election (what would happen if a, "credible," terrorist threat were to arrive just before an election?).
Also this week Newsweek reports that, "a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States.
Not that he could allow a cop/federal agent to shoot someone who posed an immediate threat to the lives of others, but suspects. You know, like de Menezes. We all know how well that worked. The guy did go on to say, "the president would be on less solid legal ground were he to order the killing of a terror suspect in the United States who was not actively preparing an attack.
Not that such an authorization would be, ipso facto illegal, just less solid than if the guy were shown to be preparing (not carrying out, preparing) an attack. Of course that will be cold comfort for the families of the de Menezes of the world, who will have to accept the deaths of their families as a small personal sacrifice for the greater good.
