One of the things that I've realized, as I've seen time pass, is that it's darn hard to be an expert in everything that'll cross your path. However, I've got a fairly wide range of interests, and read a considerable amount. So, over the last 20, 30 years or so, I've found myself picking up a fair bit of information on the following subjects.
Auto repair (enough to know what I can do easily, and what I need to leave to an expert), aerodynamics, hydraulics, pneumatics, electricity, house wiring, telephone systems, operating systems from CP/M to DOS to Windows, administrative procedures (AF related), retail sales, networking protocols, wireless router setup in less than optimal environments, woodworking, shooting, handloading, plumbing, tiling, drywall repair, nutrition, princples of nuclear weapons and ICBMs, missile maintenace (rusty), C-130 flight engineer, cooking, cleaning, laundry, land and air navigation with GPS and compass and inertial positioning systems, geodetic surveying (very rusty), child care and education, air conditionin principles and maintenance, first aid, fire extinguisher use, decorating, yard care, creative writing, computer repair and maintenance...Well, there's a good bit more I could add. You bounce around a bit and invariably stuff sticks.
And in doing so, I've gotten to a point where I'm pretty comfortable asking when I don't know a particular answer, and can figure out what I need to ask when I need to find something out. Google's been a big help there (helped me find a diagram of a Prussick knot to demonstrate to the little guy, for example) and I can usually zero in on the info I need pretty quickly. But if I can't figure something out, I'll try to ask folks who know. And you'll notice that "Law and Legal Analysis" aren't exactly prominent in that listing above.
So, since there seems to be some question about whether Bush overstepped the limits of FISA, I figured I'd go ahead and ask folks who I considered to be experts - the folks over at PowerLine Blog.
On 1/9/06, Jerry (jerry.l@xxxxx.com> wrote:I figured there wouldn't be an answer, actually. Those folks are pretty busy, and my question must have seemed to them the equivalent of someone asking "Is 2 and 2 really 4?" Why answer something that seems so self-evident?> Hello! I'd like to compliment you on your analysis of the NSA flap,
> but there's one thing that I've been trying to figure out, and I
> really am afraid I can't come to a definitive conclusion looking at
> the information I've been able to find.> Was what the NSA doing against the law?
> Or could what they've been doing be determined to be within the letter
> of the law?> Thanks for any clarification you can provide on this. When you're not
> an expert in the field, it's sure hard to understand!
But one of them was kind enough to reply.
No, it was not illegal.Not folks to waste words, are they?
You'll notice that this horribly vital and important issue seems to have dropped off the front page of the various major news services. It may well be because there's no story, or it could be because it failed to elicit the desired reaction from the public. Scanning MSNBC, FOX, CNN and ABC News, I only spotted one story and that was dated the 5th.
I didn't check the NYTimes - didn't figure it was worth looking, and I don't trust their analysis on this - they don't exactly strike me as unbiased and capable of evaluating this honestly. (And one of their own has a financial stake in it - if this isn't a scandal the book won't sell.)
So, that kind of covers it. Unless something new comes up, I'm thinking this is a dead issue. The media tried to make a scandal out of something that was apparently legal. When they failed to demonstrate the illegality of it or generate sufficient public outrage, it's time to go on to the next thing.
It's ALITO time! Let the festivities begin!!
J.
Comments (3)
Once the nytimes posted their article that the nsa did it on their own, i stopped believing what Bush did was illegal (since he did nothing)... but i started believing the NSA itself, and specifically the higher generals and milbrass above them in charge of the organization, did break the law.
I suppose I'm even more skeptical of the military doing things like this than an executive branch, mostly because our army generals aren't elected and don't answer directly to us the way presidents and congressmen do. So when the military oversteps their bounds, I'm even MORE upset, because the military really DOES need to be below the people.
Posted by rawb | January 10, 2006 9:22 PM
Posted on January 10, 2006 21:22
Um, Rawb? Wrong on the generals part.
The military IS under civilian control - meaning the control of the President and the Legislature. Really, you don't want it any other way - that way lies military coups and a whole lot of South American style unpleasantness.
Another thing that most civilians aren't aware of is that the personnel in most military units aren't together for more than three years. That is, you won't see someone assigned to the same active duty unit for more than about three years. (Although I do remember some proposals to extend tours to 4 or 5 years, I don't know what's come of that.) People are constantly rotating in and out from base to base and transferring from job to job. You won't get a General commanding in one place long enough to form a 'personal guard' sort of unit, for example. And the selection criteria for advancement in officer ranks is such that folks with megalomanical tendencies don't get up where they can do harm, fiction to the contrary.
The military is one of the few true meritocracies I know - who you know doesn't much matter, it's what you know and what you can do that does - and we NEVER overlook that civilian control is what it's all about.
The NSA... well, they ain't Army, Air Force, Navy or Marines. They ARE, however, under civilian control - and Congress gave them the go-ahead at every review.
J.
Posted by JLawson | January 10, 2006 9:35 PM
Posted on January 10, 2006 21:35
And, come to think of it, I'd worry more about coups from long-term members of Congress and the Senate than from the military or the President.
One real advantage that the long-term members have is the ability to consolidate a power base - but one drawback to taking over the government is that pesky Constitution. Sure, you can take out the President and VP and the Speaker of the House - but if you're not in the line of sucession you'll be SOL. There aren't any folks in Congress or the Senate with sufficient charisma to get the majority of people to follow them unquestioningly in a time of crisis - that's not the sort of government we've constructed.
Fears to the contrary, there's a lot of slop in the mechanism of government, and that's a good thing. The problems tend to be self-correcting more often than not, and there's little to no chance that there'll ever be a "President For Life" and a government that's NOT responsible to the people unless something really bizarre happens.
Gee. How'd I get over onto this track? I'm tired, and blathering. I'm hitting the sack.
J.
Posted by JLawson | January 10, 2006 10:40 PM
Posted on January 10, 2006 22:40