Sadly, around six months ago, whatever conglomerate that owns C-Net decided to use their techie resource to promote their own personal political agenda, and there was a subtle change. Suddenly, the NSA collecting a database of YOUR telephone calls is a major fear story, despite the fact that no names or addresses are collected, and despite the fact that the original USA Today story turned out to be wholly unsubstantiated, and despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans approve of whatever actions the NSA deems necessary to stave off another 9/11 — or worse.
See, there are two things that need to be pointed out when it comes to being attacked again:
1. Once countries like Iran are capable of making nuclear devices, it will be inevitable that cruder devices, aka "dirty bombs", will fall into the hands of terrorists.
2. We won't be able to stop them.
All that talk about "port security" a few months ago was just so much blather. That's looking at the problem as related to conventional bombs. A conventional bomb must actually be brought into the city to be effective.
A dirty bomb doesn't.
There will be absolutely no reason why the terrorists won't be able to bring one into New York Harbor at 3 in the morning, and run one up the Potomac River to D.C., and light those babies up. And if you don't live in one of those two locales and think you're safe, think again. Forget about the Canadian and Mexican borders for a sec. Just think about how unbelievably long our coastlines are, and how small a dirty bomb can be. 32 fishing vessels go out for a day of fishing. Think the Coast Guard is going to notice that 33 came back?
Worse, the heartland of America might be where the terrorists aim for next, as in Tom Clancy's book, "The Teeth of the Tiger". You think you're safe in Cincinnati or Cleveland or Wichita or Seattle? Think again. Remember, not only would it be much easier to nuke a heartland city than one of the big coastal cities, but think of what a worry that would put into homeland security. As it is now, they probably feel like they're doing a pretty good job protecting New York and Washington.
What if they had to protect a hundred cities?
So this is as serious as it gets, folks.
Well, next up in the NSA saga was them asking the ISPs to hold onto their records longer than they presently do. You can imagine the slant a left-leaning site like C-Net put on such a story. I dread to think how many times the words "rights", "privacy", "civil", "liberties" and "violated" were used in the article. Here is my response in their forum.
Ah, here we go again.
The government tries to do its job and prevent the next 9/11, and the moonbats come out of the woodwork screaming about "civil liberties". Of course, these same moonbats who are screaming "Impeach Bush!" for this so-called "invasion of privacy" would be the ones hollering the loudest if — or should I say when — we have another 9/11. "Why didn't the government DO something?! Impeach Bush!" You can already hear it. Sorry, gang, but you can't have it both ways.
Let's take a hypothetical, shall we? Let's say that Zacarias Moussaoui is detained by the FBI a week before 9/11. He claims that he knows a large attack on our country will take place in about a week. He doesn't know how or when, but he believes one of the attacks will destroy the World Trade Center, Allah willing.
Your wife and mother of your three children works at the World Trade Center.
To contact his local al Qaeda cell, all he has is an email address.
Now ask yourself again: What's it gonna be?
Do you want the Feds to be able to track down the email address and who's written it over the past year and hopefully save the life of your wife and countless thousands of others? Or do you want to live blissfully in the knowledge that your Internet secrets are safe and the FBI will never find out about that porno site you visited last month? That's the choice, and your only one.
This, of course, is the real crux of the matter. Who GIVES a damn if the Feds have a record of your Internet activities? Ask yourself this: Are you currently doing — or have you EVER done — anything illegal on the 'Net? Ever? Visited a porno site? Perfectly legal. Wrote an angry email to a friend calling President Bush a "gutless coward" for (1) invading the peaceful kingdom of Saddam Hussein or (2) NOT sending enough troops in the first place? Perfectly legal. Put up a web page calling for the immediate return of these "stolen lands" back to Britain, France, Spain and Mexico? Again, perfectly legal.
What's that? You've never done anything illegal on the Internet outside of filching a few MP3s? Me, neither.
So what are you worried about?
And remember, a news agency shapes the story to fit its own political agenda. Longtime readers of this site who are also politically savvy are aware that C-Net has taken a sharp left turn in recent months. Witness the scare tactics they employ with the little header by the main link to this story:
"Attorney general says ISPs must retain records of Americans' activities…"
That gives you the impression the ISPs don't already retain their records, and the bad, evil government now says they must, right? No, they want them to retain the records LONGER than they already do. But that's the nature of 'slant' in the news biz. Get your political point across while scaring the readers into reading the article out of pure fear. C-Net does the same thing with their "global warming" articles. Scare, hype and fear are the mainstays of the business.
Always have been, always will be.
Get it together, folks. A "civil liberty" is the right to put up an "Impeach Bush!" web site and not get thrown into prison. Just ask any Chinese dissident. Trying to stop the government from preventing the next 9/11 is not a "civil liberty", and, in the final analysis, could be considered an act of treason.
Or, at very least, complicity to murder.