If Im not a terrorist I have nothing to fear, right?

Wherein we look at why it is dangerous to assume that liberties can be lightly discarded in the name of safety.

USA Today has an article published literally minutes ago online, about how the NSA wiretap program is keeping a database of millions of americans phone usage habits.

It seems like a majority of American's have supported the illegal NSA wiretap program because they felt it would only effect terrorists. Think again, we now know that the NSA program is a sweeping monitoring of millions of Americans. I think its safe to say their arent millions of terrorists in this country, now isnt it?

Now Im sure the arguement will be made its only being used for "good". This is of course another silly arguement to make. Such a database could be used for a variety of reasons, some for security, some for less ethical reasons. The point is that this database exists. Our privacy is therefore at the mercy of those who have access to it.

Given the integrity this administration has shown in outing a CIA agent for political reasons, isnt it a bit much to trust them with access to the phone records of millions of Americans?

Then again, Americans trusted them after they admited to breaking the law.

Maybe its time for a little less trust.

Porter Goss out, Hayden in?

In which we discuss the importance of transperancy.

So Porter Goss got the boot on friday, for reasons largely unknown. The White House didnt mention it, and Goss wasnt telling. This isnt a good thing for the government when an important figure is forced out suddenly. What makes it worse is with the first tendrils of a developing scandal start getting connected to Goss. If Goss isnt involved, it riases unnescessary questions, if he is, it looks like the White House is trying to distance themselves from a scandal without actually holding anyone accountable.

Let me develop that last point a bit. Its one thing to have an element of an administration caught committing a crime. The proper response to me seems to be to disclose the facts, explain that this behavior is not tolerated in your administration, and signal to others that this sort of behavior is unnacceptable. However if Goss was tossed overboard (and I admit, this is still somewhat wild speculation) to prevent the scandal from burning the white house, this stinks less about dissaproving of his actions and more about dissaproving he got caught.

Now Goss's replacement doesnt appear to be a winner either. He seems frightfully unnaware of what the 4th ammendment actually entails. Hes another Bush loyalist, who seems to have run the illegal NSA spy program. I say a illegal in the sense it violated clear statutes defined by congress, even if that law was innapropriate, simply ignoring it is unnacceptable. That the white house hasnt been forthright and detailed in explaining the program is worse, I for one assume the worst. Why? Because assuming anything else allows for erosion of our liberties.

On top of that, the idea of having a military leader as the head of a civilian spy organization is worrying in a different way, as the house chair of the intelligence commitee pointed out. Military intelligence focuses on how to fight and win wars, both today and in the future. Civilian intellignece focuses mroe on getting information that allows policy makeers to act appropriately. To me it signals a world view that seems overly focussed on military solutions to the issues abroad.

Consider such a shift in light of Iran. A military intelligence perspective will be overly focussed on how to use military action to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. A civilian perspective would look at how to stop Iran's nuclear program, both through force, and other means such as diplomacy. In light of this administration's tendency to see military action as a first resort instead of a last resort, this short of shift is both expected and rather frightening.

Rummy left speechless

Werein we examine how really their really arent words to defend the use of intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war.

If you havent heard of the exchange between the secratary of defense and a former CIA agent, I suggest heading over to CNN.com and checking it out. At one point Rumsfeld is caught in an outright lie, or at least an attempt to parse and dissemble his way out of a tough question about Rumsfeld's claims that we knew where Iraq's weapons of mass destructions were located. The questioner, Ray McGovern, called Rummy on adding qualifications to his words after the fact. And there, Rumsfeld, having been caught, is at a complete loss... at first stuttering, then after stopping security from removing McGovern, silently but visably racking his brain for a way out. There wasnt a way out though, Rummy was nailed and he knew it. The subject was changed again from there, but the deer in headlights moment for a weasel like Rummy was worth it.

This isnt an isolated incident for Rummy. He repeatedly dodges and shifts the issue whenever questioned. About soildiers body armor, about the lack of weapons of mass destruction, about the degradation of the security situation in Iraq, not once do I ever see the secretary of defense admitting his mistakes, and vowing to do better. Instead its a never ending stream of excuses and justifictaion, oftentimes straining credibility to it's limits.

Rumsfeld should be fired, but he won't. This is this administrations modus operandi. His term as secretary of defense is a disgusting mix of incompetence and arrogance, but that just means he fits right in the White House these days. Today was just another good illustration of his basic dishonesty, and the kind of questions he should be facing any time he appears in public.

Zacarias Moussaoui avoids the death Penalty.

Wherein we examine the merits of capital punishment.

If anyone deserved the death penalty, ole Zacarias made about as good a case for it as anyone. A man who quite enthusiasticly and defiantly celebrates the senseless and brutal distruction of thousands of innocents is most assuredly a monster, and does not deserve to live. If he were to die tommorow I would not feel an ounce of sorrow, pity, or sympathy. If he were to have been sentenced to death I wouldnt have have uttered a word or thought of protest.

But I cant help but think that America is better off for not executing Moussaoui.

Rest assured, I think he deserves to die. I just dont see how the state executing him, or anyone for that matter accomplishes anything thats in our best interest.

First, I cannot see how the death penalty benefits our society. And as for deterring others, well it seems to me that the people who are most deserving of death are the least able to learn from anothers fate. Does anyone think that our enemies would see Moussaoui be executed and think to themselves, "Wow, they are going to kill me if I blow myself up in a croweded market"? Thought not.

Of course, some will make the argument that the US will be seen as weak by our enemies for not killing him. I cant see as how we should care what the enemies abroad might think. It is not their opinion that matters. This case will not have a signifigant impact on how the hardliners or their supporters view us. They are predisposed to find fault in all our actions. If we kill Moussaoui, they would celebrate his martyrdom. If we dont they may call us weak. It should be plainly evident that we cannot win in their eyes, so why should we try?

What matters is in those around the world who could be our allies, or who might consider supporting our enemies. And to those people the most powerful message we can send is that we do not revel in killing, that while we will deal with our enemies harshly we will do so while adhering to our highest of principles. We must show that we are better then our enemy. Not in terms of degrees, but the difference must be night and day. And showing that we respect justice, but do not kill unless absolutely nescessary sends the message that we do not worship death like the terrorists of al Qaeda.

The general issue of the death penalty must be addressed. To put it bluntly, I can see no tangible benefit to the state for the death penalty. With due process and legal costs, there is little benefit in terms of costs to executing anyone. In terms of the effect on society, the difference between life without release seems little different then the death penalty. Both will be seperated and isolated from society permanantly. Functionally, it just doesnt seem like there is any compelling reason for the death penalty.

There is also the matter of having no recourse in the mistrial of justice. Once a death sentence is carried out, it is irreversable. And however unlikely that is, simply one miscarraige of justice seems too many. "Sorry we killed you, but it seemed like you really were guilty." I just cant see it is worth what little we gain.

I wont even get into the moral aspects of executing anyone, suffice it to say that I dont see a compelling moral reason. If someone has a morally obligated to execute someone, please let me know. But give me some advance warning, I'll want to get the popcorn before I see those verbal gymnastics.

In short, as a legal remedy I dont see any real benefit to our society from the death penalty, and it raises the possibility of executing an innocent man. Doing so even once is a great risk that their is no reason to take.

What it really comes down to is people want to see him suffer. This is understandable, but its not what we should base our law on. Principles of fairness and justice should guide our actions, not a desire for revenge.

Lets not be blinded by rage and pain, we should be guided by higher principles of justice and fairness.

To Blog or Not to Blog

Wherein I lay out why the hell Im bothing with this journal.

Im not foolish enough to think that in writing a blog about largely political matters and current events that I will make much of an impression on anyone. I wont claim to be either left, right or centrist. Im more worried about intellectual honesty then fitting into the right pigeon hole. If your reading this then I can safely expect that the number of people seeing this blog exceeds my expectation by at least one.

But sometimes its nescessary to speak ones thoughts, even if one is not heard. I like to think I am sufficiently contrarian and that my view of the world is sufficiently different that I cant really look in any one place and see my opinions reflected. So here I am prepared to write them out because I feel like I want someone to reflect my views and opinions because I think if not exactly unique, they aren't commonly held or expressed ones either. Not that I expect to impart great wisdom here, at times I expect that most people would find my opinions to be quite senseless.

And so I have the blog title. I do hope in my writings here I live up to the first half of the name, but not the second. I think it likelier that I get that backwards. Only one way to find out.