The Left's Privacy Hypocrites
The Left's Privacy Hypocrites
By: Michelle Malkin
Allow me to sum up the homeland security strategy of America's do-nothing brigade, led by the armchair generals at The New York Times and ACLU headquarters:
First, bar law enforcement at all levels from taking race, ethnicity, national origin and religion into account when assessing radical Islamic terror threats. (But continue to allow the use of those factors to ensure "diversity" in public-college admissions, contracting, and police- and fire-department hiring.)
Second, institute the "Eenie-meenie-miny-moe" random-search program at all subways, railways and bus stations.
Third, open the borders, sabotage all immigration enforcement efforts and scream "Racist" at any law-abiding American who protests.
Fourth, sue. Sue. Sue.
Fifth, yell "Connect the dots!" while rebuilding and strengthening the walls that prevent information-sharing between the CIA, State Department, Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and other key government agencies.
Sixth, hang the white flag and declare victory.
Seventh, sit back and wait to blame the president for failing to take aggressive, preventative measures when the next terrorist attack hits.
Repeat.
The hindsight hypocrisy of the civil-liberties absolutists never ceases to amaze. And their selective outrage over privacy violations never ceases to aggravate. Last Friday, The New York Times splashed classified information about the National Security Agency's surveillance of international communications between suspected al Qaeda operatives and their contacts all over the front page in a naked attempt to sabotage the Patriot Act. This Tuesday, the newspaper continued to stir fears of "spying on all innocent Americans" by recycling old ACLU complaints about FBI monitoring of radical environmental groups, antiwar activists and some Muslim leaders and groups.
Alarmists in the Beltway want investigations (though not of the leakers who fed the Times its story). The civil-liberties sky is falling, they say, and never have Americans been subjected to such invasive snooping.
Funny enough, another story about unprecedented domestic spying measures broke a week before the Times' stunt. But neither the Times nor the ACLU nor the Democratic Party leadership had a peep to say about the reported infringements on Americans' civil liberties. Sen. Charles Schumer (by the way, Chuck, how's that apology to Lt. Gov. Michael Steele over his stolen credit report coming along?) did not rush to the cameras to call the alleged privacy breach "shocking." Sen. Robert Byrd did not awake from his slumber to decry the adoption of "the thuggish practices of our enemies." The indignant New York Times editorial board did not call for heads to roll.
That's because the targets of the spy scandal that didn't make the front-page headlines were politically incorrect right-wing extremists.
According to the McCurtain Daily Gazette, in the days after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the U.S. government used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma. The paper obtained a Secret Service log showing that on May 2, 1995, two weeks after the April 19 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 people, the FBI was trying to locate suspects for questioning.
Investigators zeroed in on the compound in nearby Elohim City. "Satellite assets have been tasked to provide intelligence concerning the compound," the document said, according to the Gazette and Associate Press. The Gazette noted that "America's spy-satellite program is jointly under the control of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). Targeting decisions are classified; however, persons familiar with the project say any domestic use of these satellites is barred by agreements between the CIA and DoD." Photoreconnaissance satellites that gather intelligence from space usually target hostile governments and foreign terrorists. "The domestic use of a military satellite for domestic spying is a violation of DoD and CIA regulations regarding the proper use of top-secret national security satellites," the Gazette reported.
But with the exception of a brief Associated Press recap, the story received absolutely no mainstream-media attention. No civil-liberties circus. No White House press-corps pandemonium.
The left believes the government should do whatever it takes to fight terrorists -- but only when the terrorists look like Timothy McVeigh. If you're on the MCI Friends and Family plan of Osama bin Laden and Abu Zubaydah, you're home free.
Posted by Ted Belman at December 21, 2005 08:13 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/11774
1.
BobW
said:
One half of American citizens receive some sort of check from the US government. About 20% of Americans work for a government entity (accepting that those on strike in NYC aren't actually working). All the above is funded by bond sales to foreign governments.
Law enforcement DOES profile when assessing "radical Islamic terror threats". The profile must be masked, thus grandma and people like ME get extensively checked so as the public sees this. Otherwise, it would appear that Middle Eastern Muslims are being profiled and financial consequences would kick in. Michael just isn't familiar with Operation Garden Plot during the 1960s when the cities were burning. This hasn't stopped as recently as recently. I'm thinking of Los Angeles and a couple of places in Ohio.
America's borders ARE CONTROLLED to the level Washington, D.C. wants them to be. Most Mexican immigrants are de facto legal under governmental arrangements with Mexico. There are complaints - some are legitimate - but it is still government approved. The US had (has?) a worker shortage. Equilibrium is slowly being obtained.
The CIA, State Department and Justice Department are losing their status as "key government agencies". The loyalty issue is just too great a risk. Defense, Department of Homeland Security and private sector organizations are now key.
The dots are connected. The problem is the time element coupled to the governmental restructuring.
What Michael Milikan (sp?) calls "civil liberties absolutists", eg New York Times, are really organizations of the Frankfurt School of Marxists, resident in the US. They are identified and the children and grandchildren of the leaders of these organizations will be indirectly punished. Nothing is new under the Sputnik.
Prior to the OKC Federal Bldg bombing in 1995, in public statements, circa 1993, Zim, the Israeli ocean container line, declined to occupy space in WTC because of security issues. They moved to a safer location in Norfolk, Virginia.
Nothing is new under the Sputnik.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on December 21, 2005 11:13 AM
2.
Laura
said:
You are all missing the point. It isn't the wiretapping itself that's under scrutiny, it is the fact that the Bush administration violated FISA and didn't go to Congress or a court and get a warrant. In fact they could have even done so 72 hours after the fact, which the law allows if it was an emergency. Also someone should inform Michelle Malkin that Bob Barr, George Will, McCain, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter and other civil libertarians on the right have been making a fuss about this as well.
And BobW, don't you think it's rather ironic that you would refer to those who advocate less powerful government as "marxist"? It's funny how many on the right suddenly come out in defense of an all powerful president and federal government now that Republicans control the federal government.
Posted by: Laura on December 21, 2005 01:30 PM
3.
BobW
said:
Shalom Laura,
I detest terms such as "left" and "right" - and also "conservative" and "liberal". These terms convey little meaning today - at least from my perspective.
What irony? Those holding some affiliation with the Frankfurt school of thought such as New School University (formerly New School For Social Research) and the New York Times cannot be identified with "less powerful government".
Recently I dropped my membership in the Republican Party. I do however support the Bush Administration with dismay re a few of the Party platforms. The Israel plank is one. I DO NOT support a large government. It's the body politic that does. Both political parties respond to the contributors and what we are witnessing is as bipartisan as a Congressional payraise.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on December 21, 2005 03:47 PM
4.
Laura
said:
"I detest terms such as "left" and "right" - and also "conservative" and "liberal". These terms convey little meaning today "
.....................
I tend to agree with this as well as both parties being in the pockets of contributors.
Posted by: Laura on December 21, 2005 05:46 PM
Post a comment
|
The Left's Privacy Hypocrites
By: Michelle Malkin
Allow me to sum up the homeland security strategy of America's do-nothing brigade, led by the armchair generals at The New York Times and ACLU headquarters:
Repeat.
The hindsight hypocrisy of the civil-liberties absolutists never ceases to amaze. And their selective outrage over privacy violations never ceases to aggravate. Last Friday, The New York Times splashed classified information about the National Security Agency's surveillance of international communications between suspected al Qaeda operatives and their contacts all over the front page in a naked attempt to sabotage the Patriot Act. This Tuesday, the newspaper continued to stir fears of "spying on all innocent Americans" by recycling old ACLU complaints about FBI monitoring of radical environmental groups, antiwar activists and some Muslim leaders and groups.
Alarmists in the Beltway want investigations (though not of the leakers who fed the Times its story). The civil-liberties sky is falling, they say, and never have Americans been subjected to such invasive snooping.
Funny enough, another story about unprecedented domestic spying measures broke a week before the Times' stunt. But neither the Times nor the ACLU nor the Democratic Party leadership had a peep to say about the reported infringements on Americans' civil liberties. Sen. Charles Schumer (by the way, Chuck, how's that apology to Lt. Gov. Michael Steele over his stolen credit report coming along?) did not rush to the cameras to call the alleged privacy breach "shocking." Sen. Robert Byrd did not awake from his slumber to decry the adoption of "the thuggish practices of our enemies." The indignant New York Times editorial board did not call for heads to roll.
That's because the targets of the spy scandal that didn't make the front-page headlines were politically incorrect right-wing extremists.
According to the McCurtain Daily Gazette, in the days after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the U.S. government used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma. The paper obtained a Secret Service log showing that on May 2, 1995, two weeks after the April 19 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 people, the FBI was trying to locate suspects for questioning.
Investigators zeroed in on the compound in nearby Elohim City. "Satellite assets have been tasked to provide intelligence concerning the compound," the document said, according to the Gazette and Associate Press. The Gazette noted that "America's spy-satellite program is jointly under the control of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). Targeting decisions are classified; however, persons familiar with the project say any domestic use of these satellites is barred by agreements between the CIA and DoD." Photoreconnaissance satellites that gather intelligence from space usually target hostile governments and foreign terrorists. "The domestic use of a military satellite for domestic spying is a violation of DoD and CIA regulations regarding the proper use of top-secret national security satellites," the Gazette reported.
But with the exception of a brief Associated Press recap, the story received absolutely no mainstream-media attention. No civil-liberties circus. No White House press-corps pandemonium.
The left believes the government should do whatever it takes to fight terrorists -- but only when the terrorists look like Timothy McVeigh. If you're on the MCI Friends and Family plan of Osama bin Laden and Abu Zubaydah, you're home free.
Posted by Ted Belman at December 21, 2005 08:13 AM