Mmmm... let's not get all grandiose conspiracy-theoryish. You would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of neo-cons who genuinely want to set up a fascist oligarchy, any more than you would find more than a handful of leftists who genuinely want to set up an Orwellian socialist police state. (And, parenthetically, the similarities between fascist police states and socialist police states has historically been more than a passing resemblance, but that's a debate for another day).
No, it's more of a combination of paternalistic "we-know-what's-best", plus making things more convenient for mid-level bureaucratic types, plus a pathological fear of guessing wrong and losing their jobs. There are always going to be yahoos who genuinely believe they're doing the right thing, and genuinely believe that they can do their jobs better without all those obstacles, coupled with dread of going before a Congressional hearing about why they didn't stop that terrorist before he blew up downtown Chicago.
My problem, of course, is that, if you're shafting me out of my right to be secure in my person, house, papers or effects (refer to the US Constitution, 4th Amendment), it doesn't much matter if you're trying to take over the world, or just trying to do your job - I'm just as shafted, and you're just as wrong...
[tirade] Yes, I grant that we have been at increased risk. Yes, I grant, for the sake of argument that we are in a half-assed "state of war" since September 11th, 2001. Yes, I grant that there are some accommodations that have to be made.
Having granted all that... who the flipping hell is Michael Chertoff to decide what's reasonable or not? Don't give me that "If you knew what I knew" or that "I'm just doing my job" crap - make your case to a third party who can referee it fairly and honestly! 
[/tirade] Okay, now that I've got that out of my system... It seems to me that, if there was a genuine case for arbitrarily impounding data, it could have been made to Congress. For that matter, if we wanted to operate under wartime rules, a declaration of a de facto "state of war" against trans-national organizations not constituting nation-states would not have been beyond the realm of possibility. It seems to me that you could draw a few parallels between terrorism and piracy (no, not Jack Sparrow, people - the real thing, with all the ugliness of the 17th and 18th centuries that made piracy a "hang-on-sight" offense).
That sort of thing would have some advantages. First, it makes the rules real clear, without a lot of wiggle room for some dipshit trying to justify his budget. Second, it forces oversight by Congress, which at least forces some public discussion. (Granted, my Congresscritter hasn't impressed me much this last session, but he has to stand for re-election every two years, which means that I have a chance to help fire his ass the way I helped fire his Republican predecessor). There are some other possibilities there to compel a sanity check on this crap, but that's for later discussion...
Whatever... rest assured that this will be remembered on Election Day.
|
