The NSA is Listening to Terrorists Only? Mostly? Half? Hardly.

The primary justification the Bush administration deploys for going around the FISA law to wiretap American citizens without a warrant is that we need to act fast to catch terrorists.

“If you're talkin’ to a member of al Qaeda, we want to know why (how media outlets are quoting the word “talking” with a ‘g’ on the end is beyond me).” Cheney has said, “The activities conducted under this authorization have helped to detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks against the American people.” This is of course, vastly different reasoning than the administration offered (and lied about, while the corporate media hasn't paid much attention to it) just a year prior.

Anyone I’ve had a conversation with about this issue who supports the illegal wiretapping will typically say, “well, if you’re not talking to Al Qaeda, don’t worry about it.” Apparently these are the same people who would post an “open house” sign on their front law for the FBI, as long as they’re not doing drugs in the living room.

This rationalization may be more sad and twisted than once thought – because now it’s being refuted not only on principle, but with emerging facts as well.

That’s because, according to intelligence officers, most of the telecommunications on which they’re eavesdropping are not terrorist related. Therefore, if the vast majority of Americans we’re wiretapping are innocent, it blows apart the picture that the Bush administration has painted of surveilling only or even mostly terrorists. It also sheds light into why they wouldn’t want to seek a warrant. It’s much harder to get a judge to approve your eavesdropping if there is no probable cause, or even raised suspicion.

From the Post:

Officials conversant with the program said a far more common question for
eavesdroppers is whether, not why, a terrorist plotter is on either end of the call. The answer, they said, is usually no.

National security lawyers, in and out of government, said the washout rate (of Americans not speaking with or about any threat) raised fresh doubts about the program's lawfulness under the Fourth Amendment, because a search cannot be judged "reasonable" if it is based on evidence that experience shows to be unreliable…

Read the full story here.

My thought is – obviously you need to pursue some dead ends in order to get to what you’re really listening for. However some sort of impartial medium needs to justify and attest to the lawfulness of this incredibly wide executive power, and that’s exactly what the law states as it pertains to the FISA court (see the section on “checks and balances in your kid’s 7th grade U.S. History book”). In other words - no one is against listening to those tied to extremism is the Right continues to assert - however most Americans are against unlawful wiretapping.

Otherwise, why not wiretap anyone at any time, and justify it by saying you had a .001% hit rate, which saved lives and helped stopped crime?