This is what has always confused me. Every one of these information tapping plans has always seemed pretty inferior to the normal method of handling terrorists -- finding out about a potential suspect and then using warrants to backtrack along his path to find things out.
So we're left with Matt's question: "why do you want this, except to abuse it?" The only explanation outside of that is the "just do something" rationale. Every time I look at conservative pundits, they welcome the conflict over wiretapping, saying things like "if the Democrats want to accuse us of doing too much to protect Americans, then that's fine by us!"
It's this motivation which seems to drive a lot of this kind of political decision making. We all know there's no real long term punishments for civil rights abuses during wartime, so what risk is there? They can either "take action" or risk being slammed for inaction -- a cardinal sin in modern politics. The relative risk of getting called on breaking the rules in minimal compared to the charge of doing nothing -- a la Katrina.
All Comments
So we're left with Matt's question: "why do you want this, except to abuse it?" The only explanation outside of that is the "just do something" rationale. Every time I look at conservative pundits, they welcome the conflict over wiretapping, saying things like "if the Democrats want to accuse us of doing too much to protect Americans, then that's fine by us!"
It's this motivation which seems to drive a lot of this kind of political decision making. We all know there's no real long term punishments for civil rights abuses during wartime, so what risk is there? They can either "take action" or risk being slammed for inaction -- a cardinal sin in modern politics. The relative risk of getting called on breaking the rules in minimal compared to the charge of doing nothing -- a la Katrina.