a short quiz on big brother

1. if there were a clickbox labled "allow gov't surveillance", would you click "yes"?

2. do you believe anyone else would click "yes"?

3. if not, then why is there unlimited gov't surveillance?

no one could have predicted ...

... that it could happen to me.

rep. jane harman (d-ca), proving that some of today's civil libertarians are just yesterday's neocons reeling from their own petard:

december 21, 2005:

i have been briefed since 2003 on a highly classified nsa foreign collection program that targeted al qaeda. i believe the program is essential to u.s. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities ... like many americans, i am deeply concerned by reports that this program in fact goes far beyond the measures to target al qaeda about which i was briefed.

today:

i'm just very disappointed that my country — i'm an american citizen just like you are — could have permitted what i think is a gross abuse of power in recent years. i'm one member of congress who may be caught up in it, but i have a bully pulpit and i can fight back. i'm thinking about others who have no bully pulpit and may not be aware, as i was not, that right now somewhere, someone's listening in on their conversations, and they're innocent americans.

warrentless wiretaps 101

the cliff notes edition, courtesy of duncan black (aka atrios @ eschaton):

look, all the parsing of statements is a waste of time. they were eavesdropping on whoever they wanted to without any warrants or oversight. whether or not "whoever they wanted to" included, say, the john kerry campaign or markos moulitsas is still an open question. they obviously claimed the power to do so, it just isn't clear if they did it.