Wiretapping Deja Vu, Part II

Normally, I wouldn't want to waste time exploring or commenting on an issue that's already been brought up. There are so many news events in the world that deserve coverage, so why waste time doubling up?

The story of the American phone-tapping scandal bears repeating today because of yesterday's twin revelations that the leaker involved is Edward Snowden, and that he worked for another barely-accountable government contractor named Booz Allen Hamilton. That leak should and would happen has been anticipated by many of us Americans, but the fact that it comes from a contractor should be extra cause for alarm.

It's bad enough to have the government snooping around everybody's private business. It's even worse knowing that the government is allowing people outside the government and outside law enforcement agencies to look at that information. Why? Because we have rules regarding the operations of our government officials. We expect all intelligence and security matters to be handled by the government because the private sector is mercilessly incompetent: incompetent at screening during the hiring process, incompetent at job performance, and horrendously incompetent at security, internal or otherwise. It's the same reason it should be illegal for private corporations to run prisons or run criminal gangs (aka "mercenary outfits") in war zones like Iraq. Remember the puppy thrown off the back of the truck? Remember the four Haliburton employees that got lynched in Fallujah? Remember the contractors taunting the Iraqi children with water bottles?

These sorts of behaviours occur because contractors are not held to the same standards of behaviour as actual federal employees and officials. Therefore, it is a major security threat to the United States to allow contractors to do security work instead of actual government employees, no matter the illusion of cost savings. Whether you are in favour of the Obama Administration reading all your mails and knowing which pair of underwear you are wearing, or if you are sane and oppose such over-reaching, we can all agree that using private contractors to conduct intelligence operations is as productive as using Swiss cheese to collect radioactive rainwater.

Let's say that Edward Snowden was an actual threat, a creep, a bad guy with a vendetta, a spy for China. Let's say that he just went underground and didn't bother to report this information to newspapers in America that are trying to save our country in their dying breath. That would mean that China would have the power to look at all the private communications and financial transactions of every single US citizen.

Let's now say that one of Snowden's fellow employees at Booz Allen Hamilton is an actual Chinese spy passing on intel to the Chinese government. It would mean that Presidents George W. Bush and Barak H. Obama are both responsible for rounding up the private details of all 300M+ American citizens and offering them on a golden platter to the Chinese, or the Russians, or any intelligent and well-funded enemy of the United States.

Any other country in the world could use our private communications to infiltrate our society without the American intelligence system even knowing. They could manipulate our political process, manipulate our economy, or throw some companies under the bus while making others profit wildly.

This is not just a flaw with using private contractors. This is the primary foible of pursuing security before freedom. By allegedly pursuing terrorists using methods that directly contradict our Constitution and the intentions of our Founders to create a truly free society, we have (perhaps) unwittingly planted socially-explosive devices in the private life of every American. This is a clear and present danger that cannot stand.

In other government snooping news, Senator Rand Paul, looking for some libertarian bonafides to bolster a potential 2016 presidential run, said on FOX News that he would try to spearhead a class action lawsuit against the federal government:

"I'm going to be asking all the Internet providers and all of the phone companies, ask your customers to join me in a class action lawsuit. If we get 10 million Americans saying we don't want our phone records looked at then somebody will wake up and say things will change in Washington."

While I question Paul's motives (as I do for any politician, especially those living in their fathers' shadows), I certainly agree with his main thrust that there should be a class action lawsuit. In particular I'm thinking of the kind of lawsuit called an "impeachment". It's time to file some articles of impeachment in exchange for getting some business done to help the Democratic Party agenda. Even if Obama is not removed from office, an impeachment would send the clear signal from We the People that messing around with our Fourth Amendment rights is not okay with us. Furthermore, the impeacment proceedings should also call in George W. Bush, as well as all those who worked in either administration to undermine our American way of life.

Senator Paul, I know I'm not the only one who voted for Obama that wants Washington cleaned up. If only you'd jump on board and acknowledge just how seriously the private sector has failed us here, I'd support you 100% on your impeachment/class action suit and even vote for you in 2016. A lawsuit will only be meaningful if we can ensure that only those who are actual government employees can screw us. At least it assures me that any transgressions will be held accountable to the People.

Wiretapping Déja Vu

My what a tangled web we weave. It is disheartening but not unexpected that the American people are now again deciding to confront the Obama Administration on warrantless wiretapping, a clear  violation of every citizen's 4th Amendment rights. But why are unreasonable searches such a big deal and how does that relate to the First Amendment?

Historically, governments trying to prevent reasonable voices from instigating much-needed change will resort to unreasonable searches, unreasonable seizures, unreasonable arrests, unreasonable torture, and unreasonabe murder in order to stifle the message. Warrantless searching is Step #1 when it comes to abusing a population of people and eventually depriving them of far more important rights.

But this story also deserves a place at Pleading the First because of all the work we did in the past decade to generate public awareness of this horrific government menace. So here's a little of the back story the rest of you may have forgotten, a little recap for those not keyed into the underground.

The Federal government's warrantless wiretapping program began in 2001. Most people, even in the underground, are confused over this, thinking President George W. Bush started the program in response to 9/11. The reality is that the warrantless wiretapping program started in February, within weeks of Bush even taking office.

The method of the program was ingenious, and affected not only carriers and telecommunication corporations, but also product manufacturers and other peripheral industres. Basically, the NSA would commission from each corporation, privately, an insistence on access to all "company data". The private business contracts would also make it clear that the company was expected to record and save every phone call and internet data transmission. In the case of cell phone manufacturers, your everyday producers were legally required to have on-board wireless wiretapping technology or else they wouldn't be allowed to sell product in the USA.

If a corporation was smart enough to figure out that what was going on and decided to protest, NSA pulled the contracts, affacting corporate worth, and then arrested the CEOs for insider trading. Do some research on the cases of Bernie Ebbers and Joe Nacchio, who served jail time for not bowing to Bush. Also, feel free to dig up some former executive-level employees of MCI-WorldCom and Qwest Telecommunications, and you'll hear first-hand what those guys had to say about their arrests.

See, all the energy Americans put into getting Bush out of office was because of stories like this. We were disgusted that a sitting American president could have such contempt for our ways and traditions. We were also disgusted that most Republicans would not join the Democrats in getting rid of Bush, and we were disgusted that such anti-Americanism on Bush's part would nevertheless win him re-election. (Then again, John Kerry was probably the worst choice to head the Democratic ticket, but that's another discussion for another day.)

When America voted for Democrats to control Congress in 2006, we hoped that Bush would be brought to bear for his crimes against us. Instead, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that any legal action against President Bush was "off the table". In 2008, when our agitation got Obama elected, the new President also declared that he would not pursue charges against Bush because it would be looking backward instead of forward. Imagine a prosecutor saying that to a family of a teenager who was raped and murdered: "We don't want to prosecute the murdering criminal because we want to move forward."

And yet Democrats bought the argument hook, line, and sinker. So now the shoe is on the other foot. Now it's Democrats who are abusing an illegal government program that shouldn't be in existence. Now it's the Democratic Party and its President who can squarely bear the blame for not putting a stop to criminal behaviour that threatens our nation and erodes the rights of every citizen.

If Democrats want a Congressional majority before Obama leaves office, they need to reverse course, pack up the program, and throw Bush in jail. Believe me, once Republicans understand the criminal actions that went on in the White House from 2001-2009, they won't be voting Republican for a while. Of course, to prosecute Bush is to prosecute only a small piece of the mess in Washington.

The excuse "this program protects us" is bunk. That's like me saying I need a nuclear bomb to protect my home from intruders. How can a program protect me if it makes it easier for the government to stifle my speech, take my money, and prevent me from my right to protest and rebel? How can I be free if every phone call I make or email I send can be read by my President?

So the Democrats and Republicans are both morally compromised. Let's do away with both parties so we can fix this system. Focus on third parties until Democrats and Republicans are but a footnote in history. Neither of the major parties has what it takes to run America, obviously. Neither knows how to protect us from terrorists and neither is able to protect us in any manner that doesn't fundamentally hurt us. It is high time for change....