Speaking of 9/11 mindsets. . .

The administration misled the public about the scope of its "Terrorist Surveillance Program." Despite disclosures in December of 2005 that the government had indeed tapped into telecommunication systems and was engaged in data-mining, the administration maintained publicly that the program was "limited" in nature.

That was a lie.

We learn now that data-collection is Phase I of the domestic spying program:


Government access to call records is related to the previously disclosed eavesdropping program, sources said, because it helps the NSA choose its targets for listening. The mathematical techniques known as "link analysis" and "pattern analysis," they said, give grounds for suspicion that can result in further investigation.
That domestic spying program, as we have discussed before, is hugely ineffective. We now know that the program begins by casting such a huge net (billions of calls) that it results in thousands of tips a month. As the New York Times reported, these "tips" were fruitless, often leading FBI agents to dead-end investigations of grandmothers and Pizza Huts.

As an expert in pattern analysis, Valdis Krebs, pointed out, "If you're looking for a needle, making the haystack bigger is counterintuitive. It just doesn't make sense."

And it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense financially to pour an unknown (but probably huge amount) of funds into a program that is so ineffective, while at the same time demanding Americans sacrifice not just their tax money but their privacy to keep that ineffective program alive.

A NATION FULL OF TERROR SUSPECTS
When the domestic spying program first broke, some Americans brushed it off, since it purportedly listened only to those suspected of terrorism. But what Americans need to understand is that this most recent disclosure means that every American is a potential terror suspect. Every. Single. One.

So the government monitors your calls. Every. Single. One. Day after day, month after month, year after year. Legal issues aside, the government's actions mark a disturbing change (regression?) in the relationship between a citizen and its government. Where government is inherently established to protect its citizens, it is now operating to protect itself from them.

(more, and live links at the original: click title)

Hat tip to mainefem!