Not to mention the fact that secret wiretapping menas no traceability, and ultimately no chain of command or answerability for any abuses or mistakes that might occur.
I seem to remember something in our constitution about the “right to petition for the redress of grievances”, but how can you petition if you do not even know that you have been aggrieved?

Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 15 2007 18:55 utc | 3

Although combatting terror is a noble pursuit, humans are still humans. They make mistakes and the often abuse their authority; sometimes out of overzealousness in bucking for promotion, out of incompetence and/or out of other personal or political interests.
And as soon as one is allowed to pull a veil of secrecy over actions committed, the possibilites for abuse are unlimited.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 15 2007 19:51 utc | 5

Verizon Says It Turned Over Data Without Court Orders

Verizon also disclosed that the FBI, using administrative subpoenas, sought information identifying not just a person making a call, but all the people that customer called, as well as the people those people called. Verizon does not keep data on this “two-generation community of interest” for customers, but the request highlights the broad reach of the government’s quest for data.

Posted by: b | Oct 16 2007 6:37 utc | 7

Congress is not inept, it is powerless in International affairs. We have seen this for quite a while, as increasingly power has been centered in the Executive and the “secret unelected government.” Congress is allowed to have some say in matters affecting business in their respective states: Richardson for the nuclear industry, Lieberman for insurance, etc.
As anyone who has read James Bamford’s book, or listened to him knows, the government, particularly the ultra-secretive DIA, has always spyed on citizens. What is new, is their trumpeting of it and the push to pass laws legalizing the activity. I believe that the ruling elite are setting up the framework for a police state should all hell break loose. Also, as Susan #4 says, all elected officials are spyed upon and controlled and not allowed to forget it.
The “If you haven’t done anything wrong…” meme, propagated 24/7 by the Corporate media is particularly pernicious, as who is to say what is wrong? The first people targeted are activists, particularly eco-activists who are concerned with saving the planet, and hence interfere with corporate profits. Historically next to go are trade unionists. The pattern of repression is poignantly expressed in the well-known Martin Niemöller poem:

Als sie die Kommunisten geholt haben, habe ich geschwiegen.
– denn ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialisten und Gewerkschafter geholt haben, habe ich geschwiegen.
– denn ich war ja keins von beiden.
Als sie die Juden geholt haben, habe ich geschwiegen.
– denn ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich geholt haben, hat es niemanden mehr gegeben, der protestieren konnte.
First they came for the Communists,
– but I was not a communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists,
– but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews,
– but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

But, perhaps this is too difficult a concept for either the corporate vulture media or the troglodytes who have lost their souls who watch the spectacle.
@ralphieboy #5
Although combatting terror is a noble pursuit…
There is nothing noble about “combatting terrorism” — which means the powerful employing extreme violence to the less powerful to forcibly coerce them, and those they represent. I see nothing noble in that, and I fail to see how such tactics will save the world from the mess we humans have made of it. But it will protect the robber-baron class to keep their thieving up until a more general collapse.
For a general discussion on these themes, I highly recommend the following program: The “War on Terror” and the Bottom Line

This week on the program two talks that illuminate the extent to which the so-called “war on terrorism,” specifically, and the concept of national security generally, is about the bottom line, though that is not how its sold to the general public. You will hear this week how it resembles the cold war in many ways, from red scares at home to wars abroad. At home the target is people whose politics threaten profits,
abroad, ditto. A matrix of relationships designed to defend these financial interests involves nearly every influential sector of society, and our speakers will go into detail on who some of they key actors have been, and what laws and policies have resulted.
In the first hour, we’ll hear from Peter Phillops director of project censored , and in the second hour, Will Potter, a DC based journalist …with a talk The Green Scare: Eco-Activism in the Age of Terror”

Everyone should become familiar with the work of Peter Phillips, particularly his research of the global dominance group, i.e. the robber-barons who rule the world.

Posted by: Malooga | Oct 16 2007 9:23 utc | 9

ralphieboy – terror is about killing the innocent in the hope it will motivate the guilty to intercede.
w/o getting into a dissertation on the political/social science history of the use of terror/ism, that’s way too much of a simplification to let it stand unchallenged.
at root, the use of terror is primarily a psychological tactic aimed at coercing the target into a desired behavior as part of some larger objective. strategic uses of terror throughout human history are varied, depending on who employs it. a useful breakdown would be separating top-down, state-sponsored terror (state vs. state, state vs. another state’s citizens, & state vs. their own citizens) from bottom-up (citizens vs. state & citizens vs. citizens).
within those categories are different objectives for the implementation of terror tactics:

• as a catalyst to spark a larger uprising (“propaganda by deed”)
• as a stimulus to force fence-sitters to take a stand (separate the wheat from the chaff)
• as a tactic of intimidation (a victor wiping out enemy villagers to scare them from attempting resistance/revenge; making the expected cost of retaliation or resistance to the initiator appear too high; etc…)
• as a demonstration of power (fail to recognize/acknowledge us at your own peril)
• as a tactic to get press & access to a wider audience
• as a means of provocation (sparking a larger war; sparking top-down repression; luring target into an ambush/trap/miscalculation; forcing the enemy to expose themselves for recon purposes; etc…)
• as a means of enemy attrition (sowing fear & forcing your opponent to wear themselves down thru being on constant alert)
• as a means of effecting political compromise (opponent accepts some of your demands as legitimate & the negotiation process or a compromise is initiated)
• as a strategy of chaos (sowing disorder so that a separate objective/goal can be attained)
• as a last available means to committing political violence (back against the wall, facing extirpation by superior forces, the only truly “smart bomb” is the suicider)

in only a few of those examples — top-down too, typically — does something like targeting “the innocent” even apply, unless one considers those in the employ of a oppressor/repressor/aggressor somehow “innocent”. however, state terrorism is disproportionately more common and, as such, terrorizes more citizens worldwide, innocent or not.
and terror is a politicial strategy, not a religious one, so we need to be careful to not fall into the framework of discussion advanced by those who strive to equate any religion w/ terrorism.

Posted by: b real | Oct 16 2007 21:57 utc | 11