Continued

My heroic reader Jeff, having worked his way through two of my posts (most recently this one, has even more to say (again, tackled piece-by-piece):

Tom, thank you for responding to my comment. Your response was both informative and troubling. In some respects your writing style is very serious and formal, but all the talk of 'moonbats', 'lamestream media' and the deragatory usage of the word liberal really does detract from your statements.

I’ve railed about the uncivil tone of the political discourse myself — and here I’m being upbraided for doing it myself <smile>. But I’m guilty as charged; it happens when my fear of what the modern liberals are doing to the America I love — and frustration about my inability to do anything about it — overtake my reason.

I’m curious what Jeff’s take is on the tone of both the posts and the comments on the premeir leftish sites like the Daily Kos, moveon.org, Atrios, and the Huffington Post…

Like I said, your response was informative, and your knowledge of US politics is vastly superior to mine, so I will not respond to every point, but I would like to say a few things. This story is one example of the type of things I was thinking of when I commented that this program could be abused. I know from the previous post that you would like to see these leakers revealed and punished, so this probably will not bother you that the database setup to collect information on terrorists might be used to gain information about those with no ties to terrorism, but it bothers me. I would have no problem with the administration going through the judicial process to find out who these reporters have been talking to, but the idea of these hidden means bothers me.

The story Jeff refers to is about some ABC News reporters who were told by an unamed source that their phone numbers were being tracked by federal investigators. A round of secondary news stories (and commentary) have linked this story with the NSA datamining project, using the assumption that the datamining project was the source of the investigator’s information.

My opinion: it’s way too early to read anything whatsoever into this story. First of all, it’s a single, unattributed source this information is coming from — who knows if it’s even true? Secondly (as even ABC News reported), even if the story is true, there’s no indication that the information came from the NSA datamining project. The timing of this story makes me very suspicious — it’s so convenient for the left-leaning folks. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to find out that it’s an old story re-published, or that it can’t be substantiated, and is simply a political tactic to help derail the NSA datamining operation. Jeff seems to have been sucked into the assumption that the information came from the NSA datamining project, and comments that he’d be ok with it if the phone number capture was judicially approved — but note that nowhere in the story is there any indication that judicial approval was not obtained. It may be exactly the kind of case Jeff approves of — though many people (including some rather over-the-top commenters on the story) seem to be assuming otherwise.

I’ll go one further, though. Suppose for a moment that ABC News was chasing a story about a secret intelligence-gathering program that was tracking down Al Qaida members. Suppose further that some government official, for whatever reasons, was leaking information about it to the ABC News reporters. Such leaks would be (a) illegal, (b) detrimental to the welfare of this country, and (c) harmful to our efforts in the war on terror. Jeff, if I’m understanding him correctly, would approve of monitoring telephone numbers called in an investigation on something like this, if judicially approved. My opinion: we’re fighting a war here, folks — we don’t have the luxury of time or the luxury of resources to pursue judicial permission for every intelligence lead we get. When actionable intelligence is received in a war, our frontline soldiers, sailors, and domestic law enforcement must be free to act on that intelligence just as quickly as they can. Back to my hypothetical case: the faster our law enforcement folks could shut down that leaker, the less damage would be done to our efforts — and a “hole” in our security is plugged. I not only approve of such efforts, I demand — as a citizen of a country at war — that our government do so.

What other groups of people, that are not terrorists, will this database be used to gain access over? But that is all speculation, it is not known if the story above is referring to the NSA database or not. That leads me to another point, that of potential. You are not worried about potential abuse, only actual abuse. I agree, potential abuse isn’t a problem, until it becomes actual abuse.

Well, I think I hear Jeff agreeing with me on this point: that the right thing to pursue is actual abuse, not potential abuse. Jeff’s worried about the potential for the NSA datamining project to be used to go after non-terrorist groups (or individuals, I presume). Unlike Jeff, I’m not worried about it at all — if the rules and boundaries are set (as we’re told they are), then I’m perfectly content to let the system operate as a tool in the war on terror (though I wish the hell our enemy didn’t know about it!). And if someone, somewhere, somewhen does break the rules, and does use the system for other purposes — then we should come down on that person like a ton of bricks. Make that two tons…

It is impossible to know if and when a potential abuse will become an actual abuse, so we put in safeguards to minimize the potential abuse from becoming an actual abuse. There is the potential that terrorists will sneak into the US through the US-Mexico border, so we have a border patrol (possibly soon to be aided by the National Guard) to make sure the terrorists don’t get into the country. As far as I know there have been no terrorists that have snuck into the country from Mexico, I’m not sure that there have been any attempts, but that does not stop us from guarding against that potential. (Something curious to look at is that there have been attempts by terrorists to come into the US from Canada (New Year’s 2000), but that border is not nearly as patrolled or as secure as the US-Mexico border). There are many other examples of potentials for abuse where we do take precautions to minimize the chance of the potentials becoming actuals. There is potential for abuse (of many things, not just this NSA database) by members of the government, and that is a reason why the founding fathers put in the checks of the judicial and legislative branches on the executive. I would be far less critical of these programs if there was judicial oversight.

Jeff raises securing the border as an example of a safeguard that attempts to prevent a potential abuse from becoming an actual abuse. Border security is something I’ve posted about before; the short version is that I believe it’s a futile gesture — real border security, if it’s even possible, would be so expensive that we’d never actually do it.

I’m not entirely sure what point Jeff is trying to make here, but my eyes stopped at the “judicial oversight”. Why? Because this is a great example of the current liberal strategy, well-articulated by liberal leaders, and Jeff has obviously bought into it. The strategy is straight-forward: put control in the hands of the judicicary (not the balance that Jeff voiced, and that our founding fathers really did want). Liberal strategists noted (this was in the late '60s, early '70s) that those pesky voters were voting down liberal programs, but left-leaning judges could override the voters on Constitutional grounds. Those strategists noted that while the left might never have a majority of votes, if they had even a minority of judges in their pocket, then it wouldn’t matter. And they outlined a strategy for getting there.

Roe v. Wade is an excellent example of the results of this effort. Polls consistently report that a clear majority of American voters do not support abortion on demand, except in cases of crime (e.g., rape) or when the mother’s life is endangered. Not even the left disputes that, though they don’t like it very much. Harry Blackmun (the key vote on the Supreme Court ruling) was one of those judges the left wanted on their side — and his finding of privacy rights “emanating” from Constitutional clauses did exactly what the left wanted: it supported the left’s cause by overriding the voters.

That’s not the America I want, Jeff. I do not want that kind of “judicial oversight”. I want judges to be involved after there’s a problem (as the Founding Fathers intended), not before. I want judges to interpret laws (and the Constitution) as they were written and as they were intended, and not on the basis of emanations, foreign law, or political agendas. I have less faith in individual judges than I do in the collective voters — putting my fate in the hands of an uncontrolled judiciary is a very frightening thing to me…

It has been reported that Qwest did not give the information to the NSA because they felt that it was against the law, and that there were legal means the government could go through to get the information, but they did not. If this information is so important, why didn’t they upon rejection, get a court order to require the company to turn over the records?

Well, there are lots of things being reported about Qwest’s refusal. I’ve read several reports that the government is pursuing a court order. I also read that Qwest didn’t actually refuse — they demanded payment, and the government refused that. Another piece of context, not irrelevant, I think: Qwest is embroiled in a huge criminal scandal at the moment, with ongoing investigations and prosecutions. Bottom line is that I don’t know what the heck is going on there — but I surely wouldn’t assume that their behavior was altruistically motivated.

I worry about the amounts of power, presumably unchecked by the legislature and courts, that we’re giving to the executive branch and the intelligence agencies.

And I worry about exactly the opposite. I worry that our executive branch (including the intelligence agencies) is so hamstrung by political considerations that they cannot operate effectively. I worry that this hamstringing will lead to another unnecessarily successful attack by the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. I worry that those terrorists are laughing in their hidey-holes at how the “useful idiots” in America are helping their cause. I worry that exposed (or even worse — unattempted) intelligence efforts are causing American blood to be spilled.

As far as my question about encryption, it was less a legal question and more a moral question (the kind of question I find far more interesting). My question wasn’t worded very well originally. A less ambigous question would be, Should the non-bad guys refrain from using encryption so the intelligence agencies can focus on a smaller amount of encrypted traffic?

Ah, yes, that is rather a different question.

From a technical point of view, I don’t think this would actually make any difference at all. The intelligence agencies can (and I’m sure, do) just ignore the encrypted traffic from the good guys. The presence of that traffic doesn’t impede their efforts against the bad guys in any way that I can think of. Are you imagining that the presence of encrypted traffic from the good guys makes it harder to find the bad guys? I’m sure that’s not the case at all, for two reasons: (1) encrypted traffic can easily be hidden by distributing it amongst unencrypted traffic (that’s the essence of steganography), and (2) the intelligence agencies must also monitor unencrypted traffic, because the bad guys will use that as well (especially if they think we’re only monitoring the encrypted traffic!). No, the intelligence agencies have to identify the bad guys' traffic (encrypted or not) by other means. Having the good guys refrain from encrypting wouldn’t do a darned thing to help…

I have another not-completely-related question I’d like to ask while I’m here, what is your opinion on a national gun registry?

Hmmm… I wonder how Jeff thinks this is a related topic?

I’m sure he won’t be surprised to find that I am very much against a national guns registry — even though we’re partway there already. I own three guns (a revolver, a shotgun, and a .22 varmint rifle), and the federal government already knows about my owning all three of them (through the paperwork process required before I could legally buy them).

I’ve had this debate with several leftish friends already. They all seem to have trouble understanding how I could possibly object to simply registering my guns. My objections boil down to just two fundamental ones:

First, on philosophical grounds that Jeff must be familiar with by now: registration is a presumptive remedy. In the lexicon we’ve evolved in this debate, gun registration tackles the potential abuse, not the actual abuse. I want to live in a country that goes after the actual abusers, not the potential abusers. I don’t want a nanny state, with bureaucrats giving me permission for my every move; I want to live in the state our Founding Fathers envisioned, wherein I can do as I damn well please — until I violate a law we’ve all agreed on, in which case I get thoroughly and appropriately spanked.

Second, on practical grounds: history tells us that gun registration would be the first step down a slippery slope that’s been well-traveled. There are many direct analogs in history — all dismissed by the left in a cavalier fashion that simply terrifies me. The most notorious are the Nazis and the Soviet Union (both instituted gun registration, which was followed by more and more restrictions on gun ownership, and eventually in universal gun confiscation), but there are many other less notorious examples more recently, especially in Europe. In every case, the gun registration was introduced as a stand-alone measure, with no intention of being morphed into gun control — and in every case, gun control in varying degrees was the eventual result. The most recent example is our neighbor Canada, where gun registration was instituted, and where now gun control is being debated (after many promises that this would never occur!).

Implicit in the two points above is a belief that I hold that the freedom to own weapons is a fundamental American right. It’s the ultimate check on our government’s power over us. An unarmed population is an irresistable lure for despots (to anyone who doubts this, I recommend a healthy dose of history study)…and less flagrant forms of power-grabbing. And the right to own weapons is also closely tied with the right to defend one’s home, family, and property (a right that has nearly disappeared in Europe)…