Because I'm wiped and I feel like slacking off.
Q Last year the President lauded the Patriot Act for giving him tools to track terrorists that he never had before, including roving wiretaps and other such tools. If the President has what he needed in the Patriot Act, why the need for this NSA program that he authorized?
McCLELLAN: Well, the NSA authorization that has been talked about over the past couple of days is vital to our efforts to prevent attacks. The President believes we need to use all lawful tools within our powers to prevent attacks from happening.
It's "vital to our efforts to prevent attacks." He's serious. That's why the secret NSA program instead of what's specified in the Patriot Act. Try again, Scotty. Why break the law to do something you surely knew would piss a lot of people off when there are so many other "efforts" you could have undertaken to "prevent attacks?" Pick apart the rest of Scotty's dipshit answer in the extended text and comments... plus a pointless bonus poll.
Yes. "Our efforts to prevent attacks," have been negligible. Recall the 9/11 Commission report card (via
Think Progress):
- National critical infrastructure risks and vulnerabilities assessment: Unsatisfictory
- National Strategy for Transportation Security: Unsatisfactory
- Improve airline passenger pre-screening: Unsatisfactory
- Better terrorist travel intelligence: Some progress
- Comprehensive screening system, including borders and transportation: Minimal progress
So many things you could have done, Bush, and yet you have to go out of your way to do this. Illegally. I'm still waiting for a good reason.
And this was designed to address a specific problem. The President, remember, highlighted the problem. He talked about how there were two hijackers inside the United States who flew a plane into the Pentagon.
When was that exactly? Oh, right--on Sept. 11, 2001, a Tuesday. I remember. As I recall, you didn't really seem all that engaged with the situation that day. Or even in the weeks leading up to it--from, say, Aug. 6, 2001 till then. This was the specific problem highlighted by the Presimident? He needed the NSA to monitor phone calls in 2005 to stop terrorists who died in 2001?
Those two hijackers were communicating with al Qaeda members overseas while they were inside the United States.
Ok. Benefit-of-the-doubt time: Scotty's saying the President was talking about "the problem" that arises when terrorists use telephones and email to contact other terrorists overseas. And why did Bush need to listen in on these calls without telling a judge about it? Or, in the words of the original question, "why the need for this NSA program that [the President] authorized?"
So what this authorization does is gives us another vital tool to be able to go after and detect and prevent attacks from happening in the first place.
BAM! As far as Scotty's concerned, he has now answered the question--he's said X ("vital", "prevent attacks"), rambled a bit, then come back to reiterate X ("vital tool," "prevent attacks"). Snuh! Beyond here, anything he says is just bonus bullet points.
Now, it's very limited and targeted in nature. The Attorney General has talked about that; General Hayden has talked about that.
Blah blah blah. Deciding to have the NSA monitor all pizza deliveries because terrorists sometimes order pizza would also be limited and targeted in nature. Bugging the DNC would be limited and targeted in nature. A lot of zany, criminal shit could be limited and targeted in nature.
We need to be able to move quickly, because our enemy moves with great speed, and they adapt and they adjust. It's a different kind of enemy that we face in this day and age.
Whoah. Hang on. It's horseshit (terrorists are "a different kind of enemy?" come on), but it actually does serve as an answer to one part of "why?" (N.B.: Scotty may be losing it if he's accidentally answering questions when he could just move on and say, "I've now answered your question." I hope he's not ill.)
His "answer" doesn't get to why the program had to be conducted in secret--why Bush couldn't just go get a proper warrant within 72 hours or whatever it is. But it does imply some sort of "ticking time bomb" scenario for these international calls. Sounds pretty doubtful to me. I've seen TV--there are offices with workstations and big monitors on the wall and Echelon and Keyhole and shit. So if terrorists are making international phone calls, it's possible the NSA would know about them and be in a position to listen in. Doubtful, but possible.
But I've also seen TV. Terrorists like the ones the president "highlighted" aren't going to be making any phone calls to their terrorist conspirators abroad in the "ticking bomb" hours just before an attack. We're supposed to believe that? No way. Terrorists are going to suspect they're under surveillance every time they make any contact whatsoever with other terrorists abroad. Duh. They know about the FISA court and secret wiretap warrants just like we do. There's simply no reason not to tell a judge.
And that's why this is a vital tool in our efforts.
"Vital tool." Huh huh.
But, no. They have no answer to this. The program is totally unnecessary. And saying over and over again that Bush needed to break the law because he needed a vital tool to stop terrorist attacks--it's absurd and shameful. Especially when you consider all the recommended efforts for countering terrorism (9/11 Commission report card) that Bush has ignored.