Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« We Are All Danes Now | The 12th Human »

Sunday, February 5, 2006

What Does ‘Terrorist Surveillance’ Really Mean?

Posted by on February 5 at 10:12 AM

Obviously nobody is going to see this article today, because everybody’s all hepped up on Superbowl XL and spicy guacamole—or whatever your traditional sporty sustenance may be. But listen: bookmark this article for a more thorough Monday morning perusal. The Washington Post has a fantastic piece by Barton Gellman, Dafna Linzer, and Carol D. Leonnig on Bush’s FISA-bypass program—you know, the one alternately known as “domestic spying” or “terrorist surveillance,” depending on who’s talking.

It seems to me that the furor over domestic spying has died down a little in the wake of the State of the Union. Bush was smart to dangle that alternative-energy carrot off in one corner of the speech, because people paid little heed to the section about intercepting domestic communications. Here’s a refresher:

It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack—based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute—I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America [ … ] The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.

So everyone sitting at home is like, cool, my secretary never beeps in and says “al Qaeda operative on line 1.” Nobody’s spying on me.

Not so fast. Obviously the government doesn’t have a stable al Qaeda phone tree—the program, according to the Washington Post, works through stats-based computer analysis, which whittles down an enormous amount of data into a few thousand suspicious calls to be monitored by people. Of those thousands of calls, say, from you to a friend who’s studying abroad, only about ten (10!) have contained enough terrorist keywords, or whatever, to justify the government requesting permission to extend the surveillance net to domestic calls. That means the vast majority of the program is used to listen in on the conversations of innocent Americans.

Maybe you think that’s acceptable, maybe you don’t. But according to the Post, that high “washout” rate raises some real Constitutional issues.

CommentsRSS icon

Similar surveillance was being conducted in the 1970s (albeit with less sophisticated computers). The FISA court system was SPECIFICALLY set up to prevent this exact illegal eavesdropping without a warrant, and gives the government an easy out: after-the-fact warrants up to 3 days after (which are almost never denied). But Bush isn't even bothering with that.

Bush's violation of this law is not okay with me. I have friends and relatives outside our borders. Whether we are talking on the phone about Christmas travel plans, smoking a joint in Amsterdam, or cookie recipes, it is not okay for Bush to be listening in on the off chance I might let slip some al Qaeda secret.

This isn't some trivial obscure law. This is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

In other words, if Bush had be conducting illegal wire-tapping through paranoia, he would have prevented 9/11?? Isn't that rather like the police barging into our homes at will, and incidently finding the goods to take us in?

Can you trust an administration that uses that kind of logic to keep their nose out of the "waste" that's "tossed"? I don't. They'll use reasoning that taps into our fear to gain access to our lives to which they have no right.

Bush and his goons are every much the threat as al Queda. When Chavez compares Bush to Hitler, he is on to something. There is more than one way to destroy communities of people.

I'm curious what Bushco regards as a terrorist keyword. For example, let's say that two "Wizard of Oz" fans are discussing the name of its author. What's to prevent the two Oz collectors from getting tagged by Bush's data mining as a possible terrorist team while an actual Al Qaeda cell has the minimal smarts to communicate only via CODE words over shopping mall pay phones or public library computers from which they can post hidden messages in the form of customer reviews at

It looks like you really had a nice time.

Holla and Happy Thanksgiving.

Hello! Very interesting and professional site.

Hi you have a nice homepage

Hello! Very interesting and professional site.

Hi you have a nice homepage

I like this site!

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).