The Random Thoughts of Doc J

A collection of random thoughts from a "Red" American in the heart of "Deep Blue" territory. Commentary on national events, as well as the occasional thought regarding the goings-on in the People's Republic, I mean Commonwealth, of Massachusetts.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Eastern, Massachusetts, United States

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Can we cut to the chase?

Had this elevated to the front-page at RedState - so I figured I'd put it here, too.

I have previously admitted that I cannot follow the whole FISA/Domestic Spying™ kerfuffle without my head exploding, but I've truly reached the boiling point. So, for those of you ready to impeach George Bush for "spying", I present two scenarios:

Scenario A: A known or suspected terrorist (meaning that said scumbag is on some watch-list somewhere that I assume is updated and reviewed periodically), while outside the borders of the United States places a phone call to another sentient being located somewhere inside the borders of the United States.

Scenario B: The reverse of Scenario A - A sentient being located inside the borders of the United States places a phone call to a known or suspected scumbag located outside the borders of the United States.

Everyone with me?

Good. Read on...

Here's what we know about these two Scenarios:

  1. They are international calls.
  2. They involve a sentient being located inside the United States
  3. They further involve a known or suspected scumbag located outside the United States.

Still with me? Good. Moving on.

So, here it is. For the people who are ready to jump on the Feingold/Conyers Grand Impeachment Bandwagon, please answer me these questions:

  1. Is it your interpretation of the FISA that, in either or both of the scenarios laid-out above the fold, the NSA should have to go play "Mother May I" with a judge somewhere before they get to listen-in on that conversation?
  2. Regardless of your interpretation of the FISA, should the NSA have to go play "Mother May I" with a judge somewhere before they get to listen-in on that conversation?

For the record, my answers to these are "No - and if it does mean that the law needs to be changed, immediately" and "Shoot No". If my neighbor is having a phone conversation with a known or suspected terrorist overseas then I darn-well want someone else to be in on that conversation.

The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

Thanks for playing.