ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, December 26, 2005

Happy Birthday, Karl Rove

For those that didn't celebrate it yesterday, just a reminder that December 25th really is a special day here at Another Rovian Conspiracy. Yes, it was the birthday of our Prince of Darkness, Karl Rove.

After we celebrated the birth of Jesus here at ARC, it was down to business celebrating Karl's birthday. The ritualistic sacrifice was a bit messy, but we've gotten pretty good at it now and we're able to clean it all up in a jiffy. The in-laws that were staying with us asked a lot of questions (such as "Why is there a goat in the basement?"), but they're none the wiser.

And now for something completely different...

It seems that the New York Times has decidely and openly placed its chips behind Al Qaeda and any other enemy of the US.

The switches are some of the main arteries for moving voice and some Internet traffic into and out of the United States, and, with the globalization of the telecommunications industry in recent years, many international-to-international calls are also routed through such American switches.

One outside expert on communications privacy who previously worked at the N.S.A. said that to exploit its technological capabilities, the American government had in the last few years been quietly encouraging the telecommunications industry to increase the amount of international traffic that is routed through American-based switches.

The growth of that transit traffic had become a major issue for the intelligence community, officials say, because it had not been fully addressed by 1970's-era laws and regulations governing the N.S.A. Now that foreign calls were being routed through switches on American soil, some judges and law enforcement officials regarded eavesdropping on those calls as a possible violation of those decades-old restrictions, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court-approved warrants for domestic surveillance.

surprise, surprise... our 19th and 20th century laws applying to communications don't translate well to the 21st century. According to the Times, "some judges" think eavesdropping on a call between Afghanistan and Pakistan requires a search warrant because it is routed through the US. I'd like to meet any judge or enforcement official who actually thinks this so I can give them a quick slap across the face. That is absolutely asinine.

Frankly, I'm actually happy that the NSA was able to route more international (eg. foreign to foreign) telecommunications traffic through the US, allowing us to intercept and log any communication we wanted. Sure would make connecting the dots a whole lot easier.

Oh ,well... it was fun while it lasted. I s'pose the NYTimes will be declaring triumph over their defense of our liberties as the mushroom cloud engulfs 229 West 43rd Street in New York city.

Be sure to check out Just One Minute and Protein Wisdom (here and here)for additional coverage. They're knee-deep in this crap... I frankly view this as a non-issue. Any lefty who thinks that Bush is going to be impeached because he's eavesdropping on OBL's communications to KSM hasn't got a clue about American politics.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (1)
Tongueboy said...

According to the Times, "some judges" think eavesdropping on a call between Afghanistan and Pakistan requires a search warrant because it is routed through the US. I'd like to meet any judge or enforcement official who actually thinks this so I can give them a quick slap across the face.

You'll never meet one, hence the digital blur ("some judges"). These judges either know they would be bitch-slapped at the next appellate level or are simply a composite character conjured from the author's imagination to lend dramatic tension to an otherwise dull topic.