Land of the free?

[YankeeRebel]

Originally Posted by Slim

I think the key word here is "essential". I dont see any essential liberties being given up nor infringed upon in the context of this discussion.

Well, I guess if you don't consider "privacy" from the government as an essential liberty, then no. I am almost positive that Founding Fathers didn't fight a bloody revolution to create a government that could intrude on an innocent civilian's privacy at-will.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by YankeeRebel

Well, I guess if you don't consider "privacy" from the government as an essential liberty, then no. I am almost positive that Founding Fathers didn't fight a bloody revolution to create a government that could intrude on an innocent civilian's privacy at-will.

Today is Benjamin Franklin's 250th birthday (January 17). I think we can rest assured that this is exactly what he would consider an essential liberty. Infinite rep to Franklin, a great American and patriot. Thanks, YankeeRebel, for reminding us of the words of a true patriot and lover of freedom

[Inquartata]

Yes, but not necessarily an infallible one. The fact that he wrote a pithy aphorism does not settle the question ( as I am always being told when I quote someone like Mencken ).

So why should we accept his axiom as true? Merely because it was him who wrote it?

[Amadeus]

I wanted to get into this discussion before the partisan arguments took over, so I could ask some questions, but i guess it's too late.

(of course, i fully intend to become a pundit once i inform myself enough...)


i haven't been following this issue too too much, but it seems pretty black and white to me so far:

the president was given the power to spy on people with the individual-case permission of a judiciary committee

the president did not talk to the committee before spying on people

therefore, he broke the law.

this is politics, so i assume it's not that simple. can someone fill me in on what i'm missing?

[YankeeRebel]

You are close, Amadeus.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created a way that the government could obtain warrants to do surveillance and searches without having to present its own classified intelligence in open court. Secrecy was necessary so that the classified intelligence wouldn't become public. Through FISA, the government created a secret court which allowed the government to present its case for a warrant to federal judges. The judges would then decide if the evidence was strong enough to allow a warrant for surveillance.

The law was specifically written by Congress to require a judicial review by the courts before surveillance or searches could legally commence. If the matter was extremely time sensitive, the law allows an agency to conduct surveillance but it requires the agency to obtain a warrant within 72 hours of the surveillance. The law was written very clearly in order to remove any possible confusion: no agency or official could legally begin surveillance of an individual unless it was approved of by the court.

Where Bush broke the law is that he authorized the agency to conduct searches and surveillance of people without obtaining warrants from the FISA court. Even though the law required the agency to obtain warrants, Bush told them to ignore the law and to conduct searches and surveillance without warrants.

All the talk about "talking to the judiciary committee" is a smokescreen by the Bush administration. The judiciary committee has absolutely no role in the FISA warrant process. Only the FISA court has the sole legal authority to authorize such a warrant.

The Bush administration broke the law by conducting surveillance of American citizens without obtaining a warrant from a judge. It was total disregard for the law.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jeff

Today is Benjamin Franklin's 250th birthday (January 17). I think we can rest assured that this is exactly what he would consider an essential liberty. Infinite rep to Franklin, a great American and patriot. Thanks, YankeeRebel, for reminding us of the words of a true patriot and lover of freedom

Is that right? Channeling Ben Franklin now, huh?

"Distrust and caution are the parents of security.".....Next time you tune him in, can you ask him his thoughts on this one?

[Inquartata]

There are almost certainly 4th Amendment violations there, but IMO talking about violations of FISA is pointless. It's been the position of every Administration since its passage, Republican and Democratic, that FISA is an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to limit the powers of the Executive. That it hasn't been fought out in court merely shows that a showdown has been considered more trouble than it's worth...much like with the War Powers Act.

But this may just get the matter to SCOTUS at last. Anyone doubt that a conservative Court will declare FISA unconstitutional in large parts?

[YankeeRebel]

Originally Posted by Slim

Is that right? Channeling Ben Franklin now, huh?

Um, you don't have to be a psychic to realize that Ben Franklin wasn't in favor of a state where the government "sees all" and "knows all" about its citizens.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

There are almost certainly 4th Amendment violations there, but IMO talking about violations of FISA is pointless. It's been the position of every Administration since its passage, Republican and Democratic, that FISA is an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to limit the powers of the Executive. That it hasn't been fought out in court merely shows that a showdown has been considered more trouble than it's worth...much like with the War Powers Act.

Unlike the War Powers Act--I haven't seen any real contention by any previous administration that FISA was an unconstitutional encroachment on Executive powers--and even this Administration has only started bandying that about once they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

But this may just get the matter to SCOTUS at last. Anyone doubt that a conservative Court will declare FISA unconstitutional in large parts?

I doubt it would do so in large parts.

My problem with this whole thing isn't necessarily the actual tappings themselves (at least from what I've heard so far) which don't appear to be unrelated to their legitimate purpose.

My problem is that the Administration broke the law--realizing that it couldn't or didn't want to comply with FISA, rather than going to Congress and asking for an Amendment--it just quietly circumvented the law completely, becuase it realized that an Amendment would be politically unpopular.

FISA has a provision in it which allows warrantless searches for 15 days after a Congressional declaration of war. The purpose of this section is to allow an Amendment of FISA during war, if necessary.

In point of fact, portions of FISA were amended by the Patriot Act, shortly after 9/11--so the question seems to be--why not seek and have FISA reflect what they are actually doing?

--Philistine

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Slim

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you dont really believe the comparison is legitimate. Regardless, someday when you're a bit older you may see just how rediculous and clouded comparisons such as these really are.

There are many parallels. This is not to say that Bush is responsible for the murder of hundres of thousands or millions.

The point is that despotic regimes have to start somewhere. These men weren't born into power, they used the system to gather unprecedented control over the people that they ruled and the men that helped rule them.

Hitler is a particularly relevant example. His rise to power was slow and fraught with errors in a system that supposedly had safe guards to assure that unreigned power would not be held by any one person. He used the legal and political system to his advantage when it aided him and circumvented it when it didn't.

I'm not saying that Bush and his admin are Nazis (at least in this thread ), but who is to say that down the road another President won't continue to grasp at increasing amounts of power allotted to him during a war that will never end?

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

There are many parallels. This is not to say that Bush is responsible for the murder of hundres of thousands or millions.

The point is that despotic regimes have to start somewhere. These men weren't born into power, they used the system to gather unprecedented control over the people that they ruled and the men that helped rule them.

Hitler is a particularly relevant example. His rise to power was slow and fraught with errors in a system that supposedly had safe guards to assure that unreigned power would not be held by any one person. He used the legal and political system to his advantage when it aided him and circumvented it when it didn't.

I'm not saying that Bush and his admin are Nazis (at least in this thread ), but who is to say that down the road another President won't continue to grasp at increasing amounts of power allotted to him during a war that will never end?

This is a very good point, nor are you the first to have this theory or make this comparison. Shortly after 9/11, and the beginnings of the Patriot Act, many historians made comparisons of the current state of the US to Germany, pre-WWI. In fact, there were so many parallels, that a TV movie was made, and set to be aired on CBS. CBS pulled the plug due to fear of boycotts, and the program never aired.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by achilleus

This is a very good point, nor are you the first to have this theory or make this comparison. Shortly after 9/11, and the beginnings of the Patriot Act, many historians made comparisons of the current state of the US to Germany, pre-WWI. In fact, there were so many parallels, that a TV movie was made, and set to be aired on CBS. CBS pulled the plug due to fear of boycotts, and the program never aired.

Damn, do you know if bootlegs are around? Sounds like a great show.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Yes, but not necessarily an infallible one. The fact that he wrote a pithy aphorism does not settle the question ( as I am always being told when I quote someone like Mencken ).

So why should we accept his axiom as true? Merely because it was him who wrote it?

A good question, and worthy of a straight answer: It's not the pithiness of his statement that provides its value, but the philosophy it succinctly summarises. Mencken's wit (which I admire) unfortunately echoed his misanthropic, pessimistic, cynical and dismissive worldview, castigating the "booboisie" and all others he disliked.

Franklin was an originator of American political thought, whose optimistic belief in the value of progress, self-improvement (and avoidance of elitism), tolerance, and good (public) works are illustrated by his aphorisms. He amended Jefferson's words to give us the immortal "We hold these truths to be self-evident". For the Great Seal of the country, he proposed "E Pluribus Unum" on the front and "Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience to God". The latter especially illustrates his attitude towards essential freedoms.

This doesn't amount to "infallible", as little or nothing does, but reflects the wisdom of a Founding Father present during a time when the "safe" action would have been to tolerate the loss of freedom to remain part of an empire, regardless of what tyranny it imposed.

(Source to the above: Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, fortuitously part of my 2005 reading)

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Slim

Is that right? Channeling Ben Franklin now, huh?

"Distrust and caution are the parents of security.".....Next time you tune him in, can you ask him his thoughts on this one?

Channeling, no. Reading about him and respecting the values he espoused, yes. You should try it some time, and consider that "distrust and caution" can easily applied by individuals to a government that considers itself above the law and willing to snoop into the private affairs of any citizen with impunity and without constraint.

Which reminds me: has anyone encountered an explanation from the Administration as to why an "after the fact" legal authorization of wiretapping isn't acceptable for national security? I well understand the idea that urgency can make prior approval a problem: the bird might fly the coop before approval is received. But the law accomodates after-the-fact legal review. It seems to me that the only reason to avoid that is to avoid accountability. Anybody heard arguments to the contrary?

[keith]

Originally Posted by jeff

Which reminds me: has anyone encountered an explanation from the Administration as to why an "after the fact" legal authorization of wiretapping isn't acceptable for national security? I well understand the idea that urgency can make prior approval a problem: the bird might fly the coop before approval is received. But the law accomodates after-the-fact legal review. It seems to me that the only reason to avoid that is to avoid accountability. Anybody heard arguments to the contrary?

The most obvious arguement to the contrary is that most of these electronic eavesdropping systems involve scanning all communications and then sifting out based on word usage - so it is fundementally different from 'traditional' case where you have a specific suspect first.

There is also the issue that the global listening systems the US has deployed for years to eavesdrop on the rest of the world have no doubt been picking up domestic US communications. Are we to assume that the security agencies prior to this policy change discarded any conversation between two domestic phone numbers since it was an unconstitutional search?

[jeff]

Thanks for the note, Keith. Frankly, it's been my assumption all along that there was clandestine monitoring of phone conversations... that's what was happening in 1978, after all (in a selective manner, of course)

I take your point about the different kind of scan, but since the Administration "use case" examples have been about specific calls to or from a terrorist's location, it seems that this case is still subject to after-the-fact legal authorization.

[keith]

Originally Posted by jeff

I take your point about the different kind of scan, but since the Administration "use case" examples have been about specific calls to or from a terrorist's location, it seems that this case is still subject to after-the-fact legal authorization.

My guess on this is the same reason they never went to congress to have it made legal - it would be a pretty tough (impossible?) sell to get congress to make legal what the technology does; scanning a random subset, or close to all, phone communications based on keywords.

So they talk about specific cases to make it sound better and targeted, but in the process dig themselves into a different political hole. Can't say I feel much sympathy mindyou

[Slim]

Originally Posted by keith

The most obvious arguement to the contrary is that most of these electronic eavesdropping systems involve scanning all communications and then sifting out based on word usage - so it is fundementally different from 'traditional' case where you have a specific suspect first.

There is also the issue that the global listening systems the US has deployed for years to eavesdrop on the rest of the world have no doubt been picking up domestic US communications. Are we to assume that the security agencies prior to this policy change discarded any conversation between two domestic phone numbers since it was an unconstitutional search?

It's neither practical nor possible to monitor "all" communications. It just doesnt happen. Selected targets of interest are chosen, then automated word spotting is used. If there are enough hits on enough interesting words, it's flagged for further investigation.

This issue will die shortly, as will the cries for impeachement over it. The majority of the people just dont care and the alleged illegality of the president's actions are going to be very, very difficult to prove.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Slim

This issue will die shortly, as will the cries for impeachement over it. The majority of the people just dont care

I think you are right that the majority of Americans don't care if the government snoops. When you add 'without a warrant' the demos change.

From a Rasmussne poll:

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

This seems to jive with what people are expressing here: "It's ok to wiretap with oversight."

A Zogby Poll:

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

So, you are wrong in assuming that the majority of Americans just don't care.

and the alleged illegality of the president's actions are going to be very, very difficult to prove.

Not really. It will come down to a question of 'Wartime' powers and will hopefully provide an answer as to how long 'wartime' powers are in place.