Who are the good guys?

According to the WaPo:

Two wireless companies -- Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile USA Inc. -- flatly said they had not taken part in the NSA program. Internet companies Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and AOL also said they had not provided mass information to the government.

But it's the earlier part of the article that creeps me out:

"I wish I could say I was bothered by it but I'm not," said Jacques Domenge, a 28-year-old Potomac man who visited a Cingular Wireless store in Rockville yesterday to replace a stolen phone.

"If it's only done to protect people and find patterns that help the government find terrorists -- I don't think it will work, by the way, but let's say it will -- then I am all for it," he said, adding that he had no problems with Cingular -- or any other phone company -- turning over records.

So if it's only done to protect people and help the government find terrorists, which he acknowledges wouldn't work, he's all for it. Sounds almost a little too hypothetical to be believed. Maybe it's because I can almost picture him fumbling around is his pocket for his green card, nervously caressing the edges of the shiny plastic, hoping that the guy asking these questions aren't going to suddenly through him into an unmarked van and ship him back to Quebec or France.

And of course, to reinforce that the Frenchman on the street is perfectly in line to say such things:

According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released yesterday, 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, including 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

Nevermind the question doesn't ask whether it would be acceptable if it were also illegal. Don't believe me? Here's the question:

45. It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

        ------- Acceptable ------   ----- Unacceptable ------    No
        NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opin.
5/11/06      63       41         22      35       11         24        2

Never mind that it's the government's claim that it doesn't listen to or record the conversations. Didn't include that in the question, did they? If you mentioned this might also be illegal, do you suppose the respondents would still be in favor of it?

I remember a few short months ago the government was insisting (not swearing, thank you Sen. Specter) it didn't do what the other day it conceded it's doing. So why should I believe them when they claim they aren't using this information for something other than tracking down terrists?

Here's another question for you: How long do you think they're going to hold onto this stuff? A week? A month? Until we win the endless War on Terra™? They will keep this stuff forever, and I guarantee you that with this bunch, even a court order demanding they destroy it will be ignored. Some CompUSA will suddenly find itself out of disk drives while they backup the whole mess. Two weeks after that, you'll probably be able to buy it on the streets of Baghdad and Islamabad.

I'm going to keep saying this until I'm blue in the face. The issue here is not whether we want to fight the terrists. I think it's relatively safe to say that we're all in favor of trying to stop terrists blah, blah, blah, but if we end up turning this country into a police state, what's the frickin' point? Because then you're saying America isn't about the Freedom™, it's really about the goodies we can have.

It's very simple:
Obey the law, Mr. President.
If you don't like the law, get your rubber-stamp Congress to write you a nice shiny one.