Ten minutes of word searching revealed that there was no mention of TIA. Or DARPA. Or transaction data. Or anything else remotely resembling the subject. Safire probably saw a new sub-agency called HSARPA and thought it was DARPA, and pulled a bunch of stuff out of his butt from there.
Worse, it has become a matter of common knowledge that such obfuscation is a standard tactic used to enact outragously self-serving, abusive, or otherwise unacceptable agendas that would get the sponsoring politician tarred and feathered if advanced in the light of day.
Hey, I've read most of the initial bill as passed by the House, and now I've started reading the final bill. It isn't that hard - five, six hours of reading is sufficient. Plus, Bob Barr, of all people, fell for Safire's claims, and later retracted. You would think that a Congressman would have a staffer verify that information before publicly commenting on it.
Frankly, the feds have only themselves to blame if people assume the worst. They've come to this well too often, and now somebody's gone and peed in it.
I think there's a lot more to it than that. What is a more controversial talk-radio topic - "The Homeland Security Act: A Net Increase in Privacy?", or "The Homeland Security Act: The End of the Republic as We Know It!" - I have e-mailed corrective information to a certain talk-radio host regarding this matter, and he refuses to correct his statements, as opposed to the Cato Institute, who corrected the same error on their home page. Certain elements in the conservative and libertarian media will always not only assume the worst, but try and fan the flames of perception because it's good for ratings. That is what I am seeing here, and I don't like it.
I cites concrete reasons to assume the worst:
1. Poindexter and Ridge are liars.
2. The government has a track record of abuse and killing citizens (e.g. Waco) that, while it can't beat Al Quaida, is better than your average Hamas bus bombing.
3. The people that committed those atrocities still walk free. Israel at least hunts down and kills Hamas and other killers.
4. The government appears to be too lazy to work on alternatives to spying on us: The borders are still sieve-like, etc.
So, I have to ask: Isn't it perfectly rational to assume the worst? Isn't trusting Tom Ridge bascially either the product of ignorance, or, if an informed person trusts him, psychotic behavior?