The “lead” in a Washington Post story this morning reads:
The United States is planning to provide the Iraqi government with a wiretapping system to eavesdrop on cellular calls and messages “to assist in combating criminal organizations and insurgencies,” according to a U.S. Air Force contract solicitation.
And continues with:
The proposed system would allow Iraqi officials to monitor and store voice calls, data transmissions and text messages and would be installed with the acquiescence of the three current cellular communications providers in Iraq, according to documents accompanying the solicitation.
Of course, the immediate déjà vu was “Unwarranted Wiretapping.”
It may also have occurred to some of our readers.
But, according to Maj. Gen. Jeffrey S. Buchanan, spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq, “Iraq’s stringent surveillance laws require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing and monitoring private conversations.”
The question that immediately arises is, how truly “stringent” are Iraq’s surveillance laws? As strict as they were in our own country during the Bush administration?
I don’t know—and some of you may say, “Who cares.”
However, in a country that is still in a state of war, or chaos; in a country where 14 of our troops were killed by hostile fire in June, “the bloodiest month since April 2009;” in a country where the security situation is “more dangerous than a year ago,” where more attacks on U.S. troops are occurring; where “a continuing wave of assassinations targeting Iraqi officials and a growing number of indirect rocket strikes on Baghdad’s Green Zone” are taking place and most importantly, in a country where we still have 46,000 of our troops exposed and vulnerable, I would say—perhaps invoking a double standard—-let’s give Iraq’s “stringent surveillance laws” a try.
I have not read Iraq’s Constitution—perhaps I should.
What do you think?
Image, courtesy thelegality.com
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.