Civil Liberties vs. National Security
Analysis: Liberties Often War Casualties
The Associated Press
Given a free hand after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush followed the uncertain footsteps of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Adams and other past presidents who made civil liberties the first casualty of war.
Eavesdropping without warrants, redefining torture, building loopholes into the Geneva Conventions and the USA Patriot Act will be parts of Bush's legacy _ and a cautionary tale for the next president who struggles with the balance between safety and civil liberties. [...]
Have we gone too far to defend the nation?
What happens if we don't go far enough?
I was glad to find this analysis giving a broader historical perspective of the tension between civil liberties and national security. I really don't resonate with kneejerk reactions to the domestic spying charges, especially when you consider that these actions may have prevented a terrorist attack. At the same time... how hard can it be to get a warrant? And if they really do have reason and probable cause to tap these conversations, can't they get a warrant quickly and easily? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of getting a warrant is to have a hopefully impartial judge review the case for snooping so that particular tool isn't abused. Unfortuntately there's a long history of government abuse of surveillance power. The circles of surveillance expand to groups with a legitimate right to protest the government... you know, like the Quakers.
Related: Our friends at Powerline call Mccain's proposed law banning cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners in American custody a "terrorist rights bill" that will "end our ability to obtain any information from terrorists." That's some seriously crude hyperbole, folks. More extremism and exaggeration to advance their failing neocon agenda.
posted by Chuck Olsen @ 3:56 PM |
| 
17 Comments:
This informative post at Wampum addresses past precedents, their historical circumstances, and the precedent that Bush seems to be working off of - Nixon and the Huston Plan.
What's very disturbing to me, is not so much that the government was illegaly surveiling US citizens, but the failure of our media to properly surveil the government on our behalf.
Additionally, you sight the confusing aspect that there are legal ways to go about this that do not constrain the governments ability to conduct surveilance. A warrent may be issued up to 72 hours after surveilance begins, and the FISA court, which was created specifically for this purpose, has only denied one supbeona in over 20 years of operation.
And of course there is this:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
oh, tom.... how quaint!
it's just a piece of paper. ;-)
Now if the writing of the Constitution would have been vlogged...
"Failing agenda?"
Denial, not just a river in Egypt!
-Censored
"how hard can it be to get a warrant?"
When the circumstances are:
* You've just nabbed a top Al Quaeda figure (say, Ramsi Binalshibh) and his laptop and Sidekick
* You have 12-48 hours to monitor his traffic before he's missed
...then the answer is "too long". I've heard that it can take a matter of weeks to get a FISA warrant. 72 hours after surveillance begins is actually too long, in circumstances like this.
Tom cites the Fourth Amendment:
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Probable Cause: Turning up in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Sidekick.
" oh, tom.... how quaint!
it's just a piece of paper. ;-)"
I thought it was a "living document"?
I remember before 9/11, when liberals thought libertarians were so uncool...
Oh, yeah:
" Now if the writing of the Constitution would have been vlogged..."
That gimp Hamilton would've just photoshopped a bunch of crap into it. No good.
Mitch, my understanding of FISA is that they have 72 hours max to wiretap -- carte blanch -- before seeking a FISA warrant, regardless of whether it's granted. Basically, they can do whatever they want for 72 hours. That's well beyond the 12-48 hours you keep talking about.
So how is this not sufficient? Does this not offend your civil libertarian sensibilities?
Here's the real problem sportsfans.
You're applying a national law to an international situation. The constitution is the law of the land, but the calls/communications are international...and there's really no intention of brings these guys to justice (a courtroom) rather the plan is to take justice to these guys. (55 grains at a time.)
(And its US persons, not citizens - legal residents and visa holders are protected as well.)
Moreover, the constitution basically says that the gov't can screw with you, for example, do a walk thru when they feel like it. What does that mean? They can't impose WITHOUT A GOOD REASON.
In this case, not only is there a good reason (national security) there is also no imposition.
Q: Was that an unreasonable search?
A: Hell, didn't even notice it...
So if there's a good reason, there's no imposition, and its international rather than national, what's the problem?
Besides, everyone's doin' it...
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
Its all moot though, its covered by USSID 18.
This is just more anti-Bush nonsense. Ya'll gotta be careful with this stuff, the little bit of credibility you have is slipping away.
-Censored
Censored Island is a scary, lonely place.
USSID 18
Well, if by scary you mean out there with Clinton and Carter...then yeah, but its hardly lonely.
-Censored
Don't forget the scary part - you're basically saying it's okay to spy on Americans as long as they don't know about it. Which makes your little island a police state. Good luck with that.
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
Chuck,
There is no blanket authorization to spy on Americans.
That "fact check" should be called "wishful thinking." That "US persons" exception I indicated is in USSID 18. Essentially the AG could direct an exception with written authorization. Of course the AG's authority is derived from the executive... you can see where this is going.
JH explains the legal pretty well -http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012623.php
All that aside, I would have become a lawyer if I wanted to debate what's legal. I'll stick with right and wrong.
As long as there is no imposition, the communication is international and involves national security, I'm all for it.
I've yet to see a coherent arguement against it (provided the above...) Just more of the
"OMFG Bu$h = teh suck!!!"
So really, what is your objection?
-Censored
I'll see your right wing lawyer and raise you a right wing lawyer.
Censored: I have no reason to respond to you if you haven't read my original post, and acknowledge it's very reasonable tone addressing the balance between civil liberties and national security. I state my concerns there.
Meanwhile, check out this video of Bush outright lying. From the White House transcript in 2004:
"[T]here are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Wow Chuck,
I stand corrected. The President didn't tell you about a classified program.
Was there a point to that?
Got anything else Captain Obvious?
-Censored
<< Home