Wulfie's Wurld

Editorial: Domestic Spying

Let me be clear about one thing: I condone domestic spying. As an intel guy from way back, the best way to make a decision is to make sure you have all the facts. If I, or my family, show probable cause that we may be engaged in terrorist acts, I would hope that the authorities would be listening in to my conversations, reading my emails, and gathering as much information about me as possible.

Probable cause.

That's the kicker, isn't it? There should be probable cause. That's why you get warrants. It's part of the checks and balances process of the government to make sure one branch doesn't get carried away. All you need for a warrant is to show probable cause.

In the case of probable terrorism, you don't even need to get the warrant first. If something happens that the NSA or whomever needs to jump on a lead right away, the can do it legally. The warrant can follow any time up to 72 hours later. For those bad in math, that's three days. If we're engaged in a war against terror, then the Attorney General damn well better have a pager. Granted, with three days we won't have to yank him out of a warm bed. We could wait a few hours until the sun comes up. Then the A.G. can look over the request to determine whether there is probable cause or not.

Is that so hard? It's not rocket science.

But, some may say, the law governing this was written back in the 70s, when only Dick Tracy in the comics had two-way wrist radios, and cell phones were only wet dreams in the pizza-infested slumber of geeks and yuppies. Noted. But, some may say, "probable cause" needs to be redefined in response to a thread that wasn't perceived then. Noted. Times change. Things need to be revisited. That's why there's a different branch of the government set up to make the laws and define the definitions, to make sure one branch doesn't get carried away. If the Homeland Security Act can be expedited through that different branch, an update to these laws should be a no-brainer.

Ah, but what to do in the meanwhile?

Well, consider the following two statements. Both are in response to the same need, and in response to the same actions taken in dealing with that need.

1. "The President can do whatever he wants in a time of war."

2. "We understand the concerns of the citizens. We're asking Congress to evaluate and update the old laws concerning these issues. In the meanwhile, we are going to do what it takes to protect our citizens. We will try to get warrants ahead of time, even for the terrorists. We will have the Courts review our work where that is not possible, but until we get the updated guidance from Congress, we'll do our best and accept the responsibilities for our actions."

To me, statement #2 sounds reasonable and fairly well thought-out. Statement #1 sounds like an egotistical power grab. I don't know about you, but I feel warmer and fuzzier with #2. I feel like the concept of checks and balances as established by our Founding Fathers are not being crushed under heel. I feel like all three branches, in that case, are working for a common goal. With statement #1, I feel the terrorists have already won.