Patrick M Brennan

A Federal judge has ruled that the Bush administration’s warrantless spying program is unconstitutional and has ordered it halted immediately. It’s about time the rule of law was reasserted around here.

I don’t feel too sanguine about this, unfortunately. I expect that the judge’s ruling will be ignored by the people who actually run the program. I expect the administration to appeal the ruling to their reliable friends in the Supreme Court.

(Also, do I smell another TERROR ALERT coming?)

Seriously, here’s the question I’ve been wondering about ever since I learned about the warrantless surveillance program: Who are they really spying on?

In defending the indefensible spying program, reliable blowhard David Brooks says that if the US military in Afghanistan found an Al Qaeda laptop with 4000 telephone numbers on it, he’d absolutely want to have those numbers monitored, implying that liberals like me would rather not. Well, guess what? We’d all like to have those numbers monitored. And there isn’t a judge in the world who wouldn’t issue a warrant based on such information. So that brings us back to the same question: if the NSA was monitoring legitimate targets, why didn’t Bush seek warrants for it? The FISA court is extremely deferential: they’ve turned down 4 requests out of 15,000. It’s also easy to seek a warrant after the monitoring has begun: the law allows up to 72 hours between the start of a wiretap and the seeking of a warrant, and somehow I suspect that nobody would ever be punished if they slipped that deadline by a few days – again, assuming the target is legitimate.

The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that Bush and his pals were not monitoring legitimate targets, i.e., they weren’t monitoring terrorists or suspected terrorists.

So who are they really spying on?

Political opponents? Journalists? Business rivals? Other assorted friends, enemies, family? Me? You?

Remember, this program has been going on since 2001 - since before September 11th, in fact. 9/11 only gave them some political cover for something they were already doing.

Who are they really spying on?

I’m a little obsessive about Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs. I think we should all be switching to CF bulbs in our homes. Don’t let the high initial cost of the bulbs fool you: they will save you money in the long run, and you don’t have to change them nearly as often. They use a lot less electricity, so they cost you less and they’re better for the environment. That’s a win-win. Around our house, I’ve been changing them in slowly, trying to get my wife used to the idea. She was afraid that she wouldn’t like the quality of the light, but the latest bulbs actually give off a very pleasant light. She was happy enough with the results that she hasn’t stopped me from switching out a bunch of lights in the house, and she even bought some additional bulbs. There are some fixtures where a CF won’t fit, unfortunately, and there are others attached to dimmers, which are generally CF-unfriendly. Then there are the decorative fixtures, where a CF just looks bad. I’m stuck using incandescent bulbs in all those places, at least for now.

Now, what I’m really waiting for is the day when I can replace all the incandescent bulbs in the house, and all the fluorescents, too, with LEDs! That day is coming, and it’ll be a great day.

I certainly agree with Dick Cheney when he says that the primary election of Ned Lamont to be the Democratic candidate for Senator from Connecticut is a victory for the “Al Qaeda types". After all, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush know very well – it’s simple common sense – that the only way we can protect our airports and airliners against native-born passengers carrying bombs aboard is by launching a ruinously expensive war against a far-off country, and bogging us down for God knows how many more years in a long and bloody insurgency without any idea how we’re going to get out of it. The Defeat-O-Crats know this just as well as Joe, Dick, and George. Like we said, it’s just common sense. But they want the terrorists to win. That’s why this result can’t be allowed to stand.

(Of course, Joe, Dick, George, and all the rest of their buddies only want what’s best for America. They would never, ever exploit this issue for political gain.)

The Washington Post asked about 1,000 random Americans what year the September 11 attacks occurred in – and 30% of their respondents didn’t know. I mean, I guess I always knew Americans were generally ignorant of history. But this makes me feel like I’ve been too easy on America, because we’re not talking about, you know, what year the Gadsden Purchase occurred in. We’re talking about one of the defining moments of our own time, and 3 out of 10 of my fellow citizens can’t be bothered to remember that it happened on September 11, 2002. … or 2000. Or some year, who cares?