Why do so Many Lawyers go to the Senate?
Hell, that's an easy one. Nowhere else can a lawyer utter specious arguments and not be ridiculed by a judge.
Case in point from the few minutes that I allowed myself to be subjected to Senatorial arguments on the Patriot Act on C-span: McConnell says that the U.S. Constitution is null and void (my words) with regard to NSA surveillance because the U.S. Constitution pertains to our person and our personal effects and the phone records? Well, they belong to the phone companies (who are obviously not people in this particular case). I see, so, the moment any information leaves your person or your home, they are fair game. OK, so we are to leave school records, medical records, military records, and anything else no longer under our lock and key at the purview of the NSA? Sound good to you?
Earlier, I heard Senator Coats say repeatedly that only metadata was to be collected (phone, time, and duration) and that "time was of the essence" when it came to collecting possibly useful information. Several points can easily refute his arguments.
1. Let's start "over there." We have to start there because we need to know who the terrorists are. If we don't know who the terrorists are, how can we possibly succeed? So, we find out that there is a terrorist and we know one thing--that he is a dumb shit son-of-a-bitch because he obviously doesn't have the camel-sense to know that the NSA is creating a UNION of all phone calls. So, what does this dumb-ass do? Well, he continues to use his personal phone--thank God for idiots, eh, Senator Coats?
2. Now, the second point on the necessity for "needing it yesterday," Yes, that seems very important--speciously. However, why not speed up the FISA Court for that precious warrant that the Constitution guarantees us? Does Senator Coats want us to believe that knowing who a terrorist abroad talked to in the U.S. would be sufficient to immediately curtail the terrorist act? What planet are you from, Senator? As I've blogged here before, anyone who wants to communicate secretly can do so regardless of the power of the NSA unless he is truly a camel-jockey without the money or intelligence to orchestrate an attack on our shores. I wonder if the good Senator is aware that we have allowed extremists to obtain U.S. weapons on at least two occasions. We give them them the means and screw over our rights in order to stop them. Such fun!
3. I noticed that the Senator made no mention of anti-lone-wolf successes or, if he did, I'm no Syssephus or glutton for punishment and I just couldn't bring myself to hear the whole debate. But let us address the lone-wolf vis-a-vis our need to have "quicky" information--what conversation does the Senator hope to obtain? Lone-wolf talking to himself?
I could tear down every argument of these Senators who think we are fools but, alas, I see very few of my fellow citizens agreeing with me and, perhaps rightfully so for even an insider like Mr. Edward Snowden failed to deliver his message to the American Citizen--either that, or we just don't know what it takes to reach them sans mullah!
Case in point from the few minutes that I allowed myself to be subjected to Senatorial arguments on the Patriot Act on C-span: McConnell says that the U.S. Constitution is null and void (my words) with regard to NSA surveillance because the U.S. Constitution pertains to our person and our personal effects and the phone records? Well, they belong to the phone companies (who are obviously not people in this particular case). I see, so, the moment any information leaves your person or your home, they are fair game. OK, so we are to leave school records, medical records, military records, and anything else no longer under our lock and key at the purview of the NSA? Sound good to you?
Earlier, I heard Senator Coats say repeatedly that only metadata was to be collected (phone, time, and duration) and that "time was of the essence" when it came to collecting possibly useful information. Several points can easily refute his arguments.
1. Let's start "over there." We have to start there because we need to know who the terrorists are. If we don't know who the terrorists are, how can we possibly succeed? So, we find out that there is a terrorist and we know one thing--that he is a dumb shit son-of-a-bitch because he obviously doesn't have the camel-sense to know that the NSA is creating a UNION of all phone calls. So, what does this dumb-ass do? Well, he continues to use his personal phone--thank God for idiots, eh, Senator Coats?
2. Now, the second point on the necessity for "needing it yesterday," Yes, that seems very important--speciously. However, why not speed up the FISA Court for that precious warrant that the Constitution guarantees us? Does Senator Coats want us to believe that knowing who a terrorist abroad talked to in the U.S. would be sufficient to immediately curtail the terrorist act? What planet are you from, Senator? As I've blogged here before, anyone who wants to communicate secretly can do so regardless of the power of the NSA unless he is truly a camel-jockey without the money or intelligence to orchestrate an attack on our shores. I wonder if the good Senator is aware that we have allowed extremists to obtain U.S. weapons on at least two occasions. We give them them the means and screw over our rights in order to stop them. Such fun!
3. I noticed that the Senator made no mention of anti-lone-wolf successes or, if he did, I'm no Syssephus or glutton for punishment and I just couldn't bring myself to hear the whole debate. But let us address the lone-wolf vis-a-vis our need to have "quicky" information--what conversation does the Senator hope to obtain? Lone-wolf talking to himself?
I could tear down every argument of these Senators who think we are fools but, alas, I see very few of my fellow citizens agreeing with me and, perhaps rightfully so for even an insider like Mr. Edward Snowden failed to deliver his message to the American Citizen--either that, or we just don't know what it takes to reach them sans mullah!
Comments
Post a Comment