Archived: Feb 25, 2008

> Editorial

Protect America Act expires

Now it’s up to us to defend the homeland

By Johanan Raatz

Unless the goal is to go back to the kind of security that allowed for 9/11 to occur, this is not a great idea.

Last week the House Democrats left Washington D.C. for vacation, allowing the Protect America Act, or modernized FISA act, to expire. With the expiration of the Protect America Act our intelligence gathering must now operate under the older Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA for short.

This may sound good to someone who is paranoid that the government is going to select their phone conversations out of millions to eavesdrop on. However, people who are concerned about this do not understand how the process works.

It isn’t like government agents are taking the time to secretly listen to each and every phone call someone makes. In reality thousands of phone calls per minute are screened by computer programs that search for catch words such as ‘bomb,’ ‘al-Qaeda’ or ‘anthrax.’ These calls are then tagged and listened to by federal agents to determine if they are planning terrorist activities.

Even if a federal agent had the desire to listen to domestic conversations they simply wouldn’t have the time. The screening of phone calls is a relatively non-invasive process, and as such people needn’t be paranoid.

We have to come to terms with the fact that we are now living in a post-Sept. 11 world, and the government needs this to do its job. The older version of the FISA law is decades old and allowed for the intelligence failures that led to Sept.11.

Unless the goal is to go back to the kind of security that allowed for Sept. 11 to occur, this is not a great idea. Modernized intelligence gathering is necessary for securing the homeland. Now some may argue that this kind of wiretapping violates the 4th Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures. However, what they forget is the “unreasonable” part. If a terrorist attack is able to be prevented because of the wiretaps allowed under the Protect America Act, then that can not be thought of as unreasonable.

Some may also argue that Sept. 11 was a fluke that got by a basically good intelligence system. However, only a year after the attacks, the ability to use wiretapping enabled the government to foil an attack on the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles.

So apparently the wiretapping program saved the lives of people in the tower who would have died under the old system. Simply put, a pre-Sept. 11 mentality will not give us the modernized intelligence-gathering capabilities we require to secure the homeland. We should move past it, and the congressmen who allowed it to expire need to stop living in the twentieth century.

In the meantime we are now vulnerable again. Our enemies are not stupid. Without the Protect America Act to stop them, this would be an excellent time for them to plot attacks. With the current intelligence-gathering gap it may be a good idea to look out for suspicious behavior. If you notice any, Homeland Security can be reached online at www.dhs.gov.

> Comments

the kind of security that allowed for 9/11 to occur on Feb 25, 2008 at 01:11 AM:

It's not paranoid when it reflects reality. The U.S. government has targeted, imprisoned, and murdered thousands of its citizens. The U.S. government wiretapped, spied on, and blackmailed Martin Luther King and other Civil Rights leaders (did their demands constitute a threat to the security of the country?). The government's record is not one that should promote good faith on the part of the citizenry.

The kind of security that allowed 9/11 is the kind of security that illegally invades and occupies foreign countries, kills millions of civilians, assassinates leaders, tortures and detains but refuses to prosecute suspects, steals natural resources, and intentionally places bases in regarded holy places (contrary to the will of the locals).

By nearly everyone's estimate, the so-called "war on terror" has created more terrorists than it has eliminated, creating more real enemies abroad while weakening our defenses at home.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " -Ben Franklin

Johanan Raatz on Feb 25, 2008 at 07:59 AM:

"The U.S. government has targeted, imprisoned, and murdered thousands of its citizens."

Who? Convicted criminals don't count.

"The U.S. government wiretapped, spied on, and blackmailed Martin Luther King and other Civil Rights leaders (did their demands constitute a threat to the security of the country?)."

No and their actions went to far, but you have to understand the context. It was the 60's and the civil rights movement was often (and unfortunately in my opinion) associated with radicalism. 60's radical's were causing trouble, you had the Weathermen blowing up army recruiting centers and SDS openly wanting to overthrow America's democratic institutions and remake the government in a Marxist image. It is completely understandable then that the government did what it did. You can't behave atrociously and then expect to get off with out a harsh response.

"The government's record is not one that should promote good faith on the part of the citizenry."

As demonstrated earlier the government (at least originally) only started to behave this way after the 60's radicals forced it to. The government is there to govern. It can either do this the easy way or the hard way. It's your choice but in the end and above all else it is their to govern.

"illegally invades"

Read Hobbes. There is no such thing as an "illegal" invasion.

"and occupies foreign countries,"

The democratically elected Iraqi government wants us their to maintain security. Occupation is done against a countries will.

"kills millions of civilians,"

If you are reffering to Iraq those statistics are dubious at best. The one that reported 655000 turns out to have been secretly commissioned by Soros, and looks awefully peculiar since it is many times higher than most accepted figures.

"assassinates leaders,"

Yes usually dictators and the context is frequently the Cold war.

"tortures and detains but refuses to prosecute suspects,"

That's people are saying is happening POST-9/11.

"steals natural resources,"

"intentionally places bases in regarded holy places (contrary to the will of the locals)."

That is because some mosques are frequently used as weapons storage facilities. As such it would be in the militaries tactical interests to watch them more closely.

"By nearly everyone's estimate, the so-called "war on terror" has created more terrorists than it has eliminated,"

You get stung by bees long enough and you decide to take out the beehive. In so doing you temporarily make more angry bees. So what?
Ultimately the only way of getting rid of the alligators is draining the swamp. A Pew poll done a while back demonstrates this. It showed that support for terror in Islamic countries dramatically decreased after we invaded Iraq. It radicalized some even further but those can be killed. The important thing is to drain the swamp though.

"creating more real enemies abroad while weakening our defenses at home."

Temporarily. Remember the beehive again.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " -Ben Franklin

I thought this might come up. Liberty can't exist unless it is protected from a brutal state of nature. The post-9/11 world is Hobbesian in nature, and we need to accept that if we are to adjust to it.

pathetic on Feb 25, 2008 at 07:43 PM:

wow the author of this article is a complete and utter tool. i'm just glad that Bush is going to be gone soon, and Obama will be in office. i mean how can one's views on life be so convoluted?

Johanan Raatz on Feb 26, 2008 at 07:36 AM:

"i mean how can one's views on life be so convoluted?"

If you read Thomas Hobbes's book the Leviathan you'll see it's not convoluted at all.

Johanan Raatz on Feb 26, 2008 at 08:45 AM:

I'm really pretentious. All I ever do is reference philosophers whose ideas I distort to “make” my weak arguments.

Johanan Raatz (the real one) on Feb 26, 2008 at 10:09 AM:

"I'm really pretentious. All I ever do is reference philosophers whose ideas I distort to “make” my weak arguments."

So I take it you would like to revert a little towards the state of nature. Weak arguments aren't backed up by reality. 9/11 was real.

webster.... on Feb 26, 2008 at 01:02 PM:

"tool"

n. an anonymous commentator for the Post who likes to name call.

It takes guts to post anonymously hey?

Look what I can do!

Kurt on Feb 27, 2008 at 05:53 PM:

First of all, it wasn't the Democrats who let the PAA expire. That responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of Republicans. They refused to go along with a temporary extension so differences between the Senate and House bills could be discussed. President Bush also said he would veto any temporary extension to allow a conference between the 2 houses so you can put the blame on him as well.

There isn't anything wrong with the original FISA either. Heaven forbid the government get a warrant. They can start surveillance for up to 72 hours and apply for a warrant after they start gathering intelligence. What's wrong with having to get a warrant after the monitoring has started? Considering the amount of lies this has administration has told already, what's wrong with needing to get a warrant that won't actually stop them from starting to gather intelligence.

Warrantless wiretapping is one of the issues Democrats have with the PAA, but you don't even address the real issue that this hasn't been passed. Telecom amnesty is the real reason that the act expired. The Republicans refusal to remove the provision from the bill is the reason it expired. If this bill was good enough in August without amnesty, how come it not good enough anymore without amnesty? Don't tell me they were helping with the defense of the country after a terrorist attack. They were doing this before the attack. If the government get a warrant or a court order they cannot refuse to comply with it. Why didn't the Bush administration get a court order for the wiretapping. Oh yeah, because it was illegal. Now Bush is trying to cover his own behind as well as protecting telecoms from justified lawsuits. If Republicans are so concerned about keeping Americans safe, they would be willing to drop the amnesty provisions so the bill could be passed. If they're so concerned about my safety why did they stop paying the bills for the wiretaps and have them get shut off. Take out the amnesty so the companies will be responsible for their illegal actions. Republicans refusal to do this is the only reason we're back to the old FISA law, which was better than the PAA in the first place.

Tony L. on Feb 27, 2008 at 06:53 PM:

"the old FISA law, which was better than the PAA in the first place."

Well from reading this it looks like the old FISA law is what allowed 9/11 to occur. Certainly the PAA would be better even it isn't perfect.

Kurt on Feb 27, 2008 at 07:22 PM:

Requiring the government to get a warrant to listen its citizens phone calls isn't what allowed 9/11 to happen. The government can start listening to anything it wants and apply for a warrant withing 72 hours. What's so hard about that? You can start listening and you have 3 days to get a warrant. The only reason for warrantless wiretapping is that there isn't any accountability and we'll never know who this administration is listening in on and whether its legal or not. Getting a warrant withing 3 days doesn't seem like its that much of a chore.

3 days on Feb 27, 2008 at 10:52 PM:

yeah... figuring all it takes is a three second fuse to set off a bomb...

I see no need for three day waiting periods either.

Kurt on Feb 28, 2008 at 06:28 AM:

Well its not a waiting period. Its a three day window to apply for warrant, during which time they can still listen to whatever they want. Its not preventing them from listening to anything that would protect us. They don't have to wait for the warrant to listen, they can start listening and then apply for the warrant.

Kurt on Feb 29, 2008 at 05:32 PM:

The Republicans again today rejected a 30 day extension to the PAA? If they're so concerned about keeping us safe, why object to an extension of this law they say is so important? That's right, because they're more concerned with protecting AT&T than protecting us. I'm glad the Democrats in the House have finally stood up to the baseless fearmongering of these Republicans. Democrats want to work out a bill to send to the President. Republicans only care about the politics of fear and protecting their big money donors. The President needs this immunity so there can be no investigation into the illegal activities of the telecom companies, which will prevent us from ever knowing the extent of this administration's illegal activities.