Affirmative Action for Terrorists

Are the Democrats giving terrorist's an important tool in the war on terror? Mark Steyn thinks so...

The practical effect of the Dems' approach is to extend the protections of the U.S. Constitution to any dodgy character anywhere on the planet who has a U.S. telephone number in his Rolodex. Indeed, given that perfectly ordinary cell phones can be used almost anywhere -- this week, I spoke to an American in London by dialing his Washington cell number -- if the Democrats have their way, all terrorist cells in Europe or Pakistan would have to do to put themselves beyond the reach of U.S. intelligence is get a New Jersey-based associate to place a bulk order for Verizon cell phones.

Food for thought: The "communications war" is perhaps the most vital front in war, if one holds victory as the only acceptable outcome. Ironically, it is also one of the most humane fronts. It has the potential to greatly limit collateral damage by pinpoiting targets location, and is key to preventing senseless attacks on civilian populations.

Are the Democrats really saying they want to strip this advantage from the home team?

Is it one of those "level playing field" deals?

What is really astounding about this is the degree to which the Democratic Party feels that the U.S. is not a battleground in the war on terror, hardly more than four short years removed the largest attack on American soil. So much so that they think monitoring the placed calls of terrorists into the U.S. is a civil rights issue.

It's hard not to daydream on a 2006 with the NSA surveillence issue front and center. And, count me in as one of those that thinks new leadership in the house will make it even more memorable.