"They
were all communicating either to Chechnya, or the Times Square bomber was
communicating to Pakistan, and the underwear bomber was in Yemen and
communicating with other countries in the Middle East and also to Nigeria, for
example. So if the NSA had been taking all this attention and paying
attention to foreign communications and international communications instead of
domestic communications, it might have discovered those."
Why Are We Talking About Having Any Kind Of
Police State?
Apparently
there is general public approbation of the "national conversation" we may be
having about Americans spying on Americans. Many in media seem to take a certain smug, self-satisfaction
of our "openness" and willingness to confront "hard issues," all of which is
bogus in the extreme.
The
NSA is only one of 16 secret intelligence agencies under the general control of
the Director of National Intelligence.
We aren't talking about the others. Even though they have a history of operating outside the law
or against it, we aren't talking about them
We
aren't talking about any state intelligence agencies or fusion centers or local
intelligence agencies (for example, New York City or Chicago). Together these number in the
thousands.
Fundamentally,
we aren't talking about the basic infrastructure of a potential American police
state, even though much of that infrastructure is already in place.
For
now the "conversation" is contained to the question of whether the NSA should
be spying on us more? Or less? Whether the NSA should be spying on us at all is
hardly heard above a whisper.
Our
current "conversation" is about the size, shape, and authority of our police
state apparatus, not whether or not we should have one.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
