Wiretapping: Yay or nay?

Because the discussion in the Election thread is calling out for its own thread, it seems like a good time to start a dedicated discussion for it.

I'll keep it brief, because I think we all know what it's about. Should the government be engaged in wiretapping to ferret out terrorists (real or alleged), or anyone else it deems necessary? Further, what's your position on FISA? My position is that the government should not wiretap, or if it does, then it should be subject to very transparent oversight.

 

Nay.

 

YES.

It's very simple. There are people out there who seek to cause harm to innocents. The means exists to stop them by surveillance of communications.

Furthermore, the methods of gathering intelligence, and the sources of this intelligence must be protected and guarded jealously. The 1980s show one example of how the oversight powers were abused by Patrick Leahy, leading to his resignation from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

I would also submit that the policies of the 1990s were proven to be a failure. Not only did treating terrorism as a law-enforcement matter fail to prevent the attacks from worsening as the 1990s went on, but in some cases, it meant we had to turn over some of the developed intelligence to those who would carry out attacks. That is absurd, to put it mildly.

And that is not the worst indictment of those who oppose these efforts. To quote from the article I linked to:

The damage from the firewall and the impediments to FISA has been incalculable. It took ten years to make the racketeering case against Sami al-Arian, the professor accused of helping run the murderous Palestinian Islamic Jihad from the campus of South Florida University, because the wealth of information collected by intelligence agents was withheld from their criminal counterparts. And that was a pittance compared with what happened in the waning weeks before the September 11 attacks.

Zacarias Moussaoui, who had paid cash for pilot training (and was reported to authorities when his bizarre behavior--including intense interest in how cabin and cockpit doors worked--could no longer be ignored), was detained by the immigration service. Worried FBI intelligence agents were desperate to search his computer, but were turned down by supervisors who decided there was insufficient evidence to go to the FISA court. His al-Qaeda membership and numerous connections to the hijackers were not uncovered until after the attacks.

And the Moussaoui travesty itself pales in comparison to the story of Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, excruciatingly recounted in Slate by Stewart Baker, general counsel of the National Security Agency during the early Clinton administration.

The pair, who had trained to pilot planes, lived in California. In August 2001, an astute FBI intelligence agent was trying to find them, and asked the criminal division for help. But FBI headquarters stepped in and insisted that the firewall not be breached: criminal agents were to stay out of the intelligence effort. A few weeks later, al-Midhar and al-Hazmi plunged Flight 77 into the Pentagon, their manifold ties to Mohammed Atta and the other hijackers kept safely under wraps.

(emphasis added)

The indictment of measures like the "Gorelick Wall" and those who have opposed the NSA's efforts cannot be clearer. It is not a question of whether such limits will cost lives. That question has already been answered in the affirmative. The question is, will we learn from our mistakes in the past, or will we blindly repeat them?

 

So, Smuggler, do you feel abuses committed by people within the government who use wiretaps are of real concern, or are you content to brush them aside?

Abuses committed.

In a review of headquarters files and a sampling of just four of the FBI's 56 field offices, Fine found 48 violations of law or presidential directives during between 2003 and 2005, including failure to get proper authorization, making improper requests and unauthorized collection of telephone or Internet e-mail records. He estimated that "a significant number of ... violations throughout the FBI have not been identified or reported."

 

Warrantless wiretaps, absolutely no.

However, some wiretaps should be allowed, so long as there is proper judicial oversight. The three branches of government are meant to be coequal, and thus must serve as watchdogs for one another.

---

[quote=JediSmuggler]It's very simple. There are people out there who seek to cause harm to innocents. The means exists to stop them by surveillance of communications. [/quote]
That surveillance can be done within the existing legal framework.

[quote=JediSmuggler]I would also submit that the policies of the 1990s were proven to be a failure. Not only did treating terrorism as a law-enforcement matter fail to prevent the attacks from worsening as the 1990s went on, but in some cases, it meant we had to turn over some of the developed intelligence to those who would carry out attacks. That is absurd, to put it mildly. [/quote]
Terrorism [i]is[/i] a law enforcement matter, when it's on the domestic front.

 

What's the context? But how many requests were legit? We don't have that answer, now do we?

You paint a misleading picture by only focusing on this.

Or, to quote another article on the whole issue of intelligence:

The best defense against terrorist incidents is to prevent them from happening. You do that by finding out what a potential enemy is thinking before he is able to act. What the field intelligence officers do is no different from what Special Agent Joe Pistone of the FBI did when he infiltrated the mafia under the cover name of Donnie Brasco. The purpose of these operations is to find out what people are thinking and talking about. However good your satellites are, they cannot see inside a human head. Only people can go and do that. ...

It is a lamentably common practice in Washington and elsewhere to shoot people in the back and then complain when they fail to win the race. The loss of so many lives in New York and Washington is now called an "intelligence failure," mostly by those who crippled the CIA in the first place, and by those who celebrated the loss of its invaluable capabilities.

What a pity that they cannot stand up like adults now and say: "See, we gutted our intelligence agencies because we don't much like them, and now we can bury thousands of American citizens as an indirect result." This, of course, will not happen, because those who inflict their aesthetic on the rest of us are never around to clean up the resulting mess, though they seem to enjoy further assaulting those whom they crippled to begin with.

Call it the law of unintended consequences. The intelligence community was successfully assaulted for actions taken under constitutionally mandated orders, and with nothing left to replace what was smashed, warnings we might have had to prevent this horrid event never came.

The problem, Knightwriter, is that you fit that second article - written a week after 9/11 - to a T.

You would cripple those who could stop the next 9/11 (or worse). And when it happened, as it almost certainly must given what we have already experienced, would you would instead proceed to blame those who you crippled in the first place, would you instead be blaming those like me, claiming that somehow, we "provoked" the terrorists in the first place, or would you have the maturity to admit you were wrong?

 

Smuggler, I just want my civil liberties protected. That's all. I don't believe warrantless wiretapping is justified or necessary. Now, despite what you may think, this does not make me in favor of terrorism, terrorists or anything of the sort. Adding that bit seems entirely unnecessary, but after you literally stated that I and someone else are pro-Hezbollah, I find it necessary to mention that.

I don't believe sacrificing our civil liberties in the name of what I perceive to be a nearly or entirely negligible threat to United States citizens is justified.

What's the context? But how many requests were legit? We don't have that answer, now do we?


What do you propose to do about those who misuse or outright abuse the system?

Further, are you not willing to go to the absolute limit, relatively speaking, of what it would take to be safe? Why not install cameras in everyone's room, tap everyone's phone, and so on? Is there a place you're not willing to go?

A 1984-ish society is likely very safe, if very miserable as well.

 

First I agree that wiretapping (also I would like to say how stupid it is to call what we are doing now "wiretapping") can be done within the existing legal framework.

I am not very familiar with the new FISA court, but I feel the old FISA court was the way we should have been spying on terrorists with a warrant. I understand the concern that the warrant isn't made public immediately, but unfortunately I still think the security threat is great enough that we just can't afford to make everything open like we would like. Perhaps the oversight of these FISA courts could be improved, I haven't really looked into them lately, but I do have a concern about making them so open they aren't effective. I also don't think there would be many wiretaps that would need to be kept secret for more than 5 years after they happened. I think we should want everything to come to be as transparent as possible, without destroying any sort of strategic advantage.

I don't agree that Terrorism is a 100% law enforcement matter on the domestic front. Espionage doesn't fully fall within that catagory, why should terrorism be any different?

If there are issues with the FBI not following protocol they need to be addressed. It is not helpful to try and throw the FBI out the door.

I also do believe in the NSA. I wish I could live in a world where we didn't need the NSA, CIA, and FBI but we do. The world is not a nice place and we have to protect ourselves. I am all for being a better example, but even the Netherlands spies on us.

 

The way I look at it is like this. There have been times when the intelligence agencies had carried out wiretaps and gathered evidence, only for that evidence being unusable despite the fact it proves who they were eavesdropping on were terrorists. To me that idea is ludicrous. JediSmuggler did a good job of explaining just how much of a problem this is. Now that does not mean the NSA should listen into everybody's telephone conversations...such a proposition ties up far too much time resources and manpower. However in the event of probable cause then certainly I think it is in the best interests of a society that wishes to to be free from the threat of terrorism to do what's needed to safeguard those at risk. That's why there are warrants issued for it. Certainly I don't see why it can be argued that there is anything wrong with this. What about when there isn't a warrant forthcoming? My suggestion would be to do what they did to the likes of Al Capone and Australian gangster Carl Williams and go for the 'death of a thousand cuts' tactic, that is try and nail them on another charge, a linked one if possible. Someone who has an unregistered firearm for example, it would be interesting to see if there was a reason why they felt the need to own an unregistered handgun. Why would a college professor be so desperate in the operation of pilot's cabin doors? Is there a reason those nineteen guys need box cutters on a plane? By doing this you would be able to establish a possible link between the activities and a reported threat; one of the big issues over September 11, and avert disaster.

 

In principle, wiretapping doesn't bother me one bit. I detest dogmatism in all forms, and resenting wiretapping strictly because of Constitutional concerns is a manifestation of just that. However, I recognize and understand the opposition to the carte blanche, and the dangerous possibilities it entails, that has essentially been granted to the telecom companies by the new bill. However, and I'm going to betray my ignorance here, if the new bill is so obviously flawed, why did it pass with relative ease in a Democratic Congress? We're long passed the point where politicians need be concerned with the perception of being "unpatriotic" for opposing the Bush Administration. Just the opposite, in fact.

 

Jedi Smuggler, your paranoia is reaching tin-foil-hat levels. They are not out to get you.

 

Theres a line from that George C. Scott movie that goes "you can't con an honest man"

I feel this applies.

Ultimately, you are most likely being tap-ed already, so.....

 

Several possible reasons. First, it's an election year. The Democrats don't want to look weak on national defense. Second, money. Third, if the Democrats do get into the White House, they will have all these nifty executive powers. Fourth, some may actually believe it's the right thing to do.

 

I'd say an immediate yay or nay isn't really appropriate, in so much as "should the government be allowed to search cars" wouldn't be a yay or nay question either.

Wiretapping should be something requiring warrants, and generally the same amount of probable cause as a search would require. It shouldn't be a nonexistant technique, but there should be a high level of evidence required to carry it out.

 

You would cripple those who could stop the next 9/11 (or worse). And when it happened, as it almost certainly must given what we have already experienced, would you would instead proceed to blame those who you crippled in the first place, would you instead be blaming those like me, claiming that somehow, we "provoked" the terrorists in the first place, or would you have the maturity to admit you were wrong?

No. As Americans it is our duty to make sure everyone has their civil liberties. Therefore, based on that, we need to stop the terrorists with the framework of the constitution, which is the biggest law of the land. Therefore: no racial profiling and no warrantless wiretaps.

Tell me, JediSmuggler, my family calls Pakistan every week to speak to my grandparents. Should our government be wasting time wiretapping us, Christians, who don't support the terrorists? If they have to go to the FISA court and get a warrant, they won't be able to, because wiretapping us is ridiculous. But if they do it anyways, then they're wasting their time. What do you think, Smuggler?

 

I don´t really care what Americans do in American territory. Not my place to say anything about it.

What I do mind though - no, what I think is an intense disabuse of power... No, one of the things that make me hate the current US administration... no, all of that combined - is that they somehow have made the EU commit to giving them full access to the details of the calls we make here in the old continent. That needs to stop right this minute, if there's any justice.

 

"Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"

^^^ To me, that Patrick Henry quote is what America is all about.


Liberty is the only pathway to true Security.
Anyone who tries to convince you to somehow choose Security over Liberty is offering a false choice, and you will neither get Liberty or Security, only an ILLUSION of Security may be provided.

Terrorism is a minimal threat we are facing, which has already been reduced with our focus on it, and can be fought and defeated without sacrificing our rights and freedom. I would rather be killed in a terrorist attack than live without freedom.

Abuse is very possible, because those running such a surveillance system would be flawed, just like any other human. It could be abuse with the best of intentions, such as falsely believing the next terrorist attack must be coming from Arab Muslims, when it could quite possibly be someone of any religion or nationality there is. They could also be biased by other personal prejudice or grudges. They may abuse the surveillance for personal gain, Organized Crime could infiltrate it, and government itself may abuse it for less than benevolent reasons. Also, has it ever occured that Terrorists and Foreign Spies may be able to inflitrate it, and gain unlimited information and access to the lives of Americans? Just imagine it in the hands of our enemies, we would have effectively created the means by which they could destroy America if they wanted to!

Remember that the world isn't split into two teams, of always Good versus always Evil, it is much more complicated than that. There is both good and evil on all sides, no human is capable of being pure good or pure evil. If we kill too many of our freedoms to destroy "the enemy," whoever it may be at the time, what would make us morally better than them? Nothing. Then it would just be a battle of corrupt forces, with corruption winning no matter who the victor will be.


"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

 

I'd say Benjamin Franklin's following quote is even more relevant:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I'd also add that I had a friend doing an exchange student program in Germany. At the end of her year, she found out that apparently all phone calls she had back to the U.S. were monitored.

 

Well, I think there's some talk that either Franklin didn't say that, or that that's not an accurate quotation of what he said. Regardless of who did or didn't say it, the words still ring true. To those who are fine with warrantless wiretapping, and perhaps "extraordinary rendition" (i.e. torture) and other things that allegedly help our security, why not go all out and have martial law? Why not press to have a true Orwellian society? It would unquestionably be safer and more secure. It would also be miserable.

You're not safe when you leave your house or apartment. You're not even safe when you're there. No one can ever be truly safe, and that's part of life.

 

I'm for the FBI, CIA, and local law officers having the power to do there job. I really dislike this whole fact that ever time something bad happens in the country we blame them and throw mud at them. So they start working to make sure they can do there job to make sure we don't have any more 9/11's, or another Virginia Tech or whatever we still get mad at them.

So which is it people do you want them to be able to do there jobs or do you not want them to be able to do there jobs.

Also this whole thing with freedoms. Yeah we have freedoms with in the latter of the law. You can have freedoms and rights as long as you don't step over my freedoms and rights of being safe and living my life.

I take it from this point here in my home state of Michigan we are working to have a ban on smoking. Now all the smokers out there are saying there right to blow smoke in other people faces is being taken away. Well to bad the majority dose not smoke and dose not want to have to breath in the smoke. My right to breath fresh air out weighs the so called right to smoke.

 

Firstly, the job that they are to do is to protect America. Not just the people, but the ideals tied to this country.

You mention it not stepping on your freedoms.... how was I violating your freedom by making phone calls to a friend? There's a difference between applying a policy to many people trying to find those that are going to cause harm without much distinction, and only conducting wiretaps on those that have probable cause to be investigated in the first place.

I would also fully disagree with a ban on smoking. An outright ban seems to be meaning that it effects smokers that will excuse themselves and try to not bother others with their smoking just as much as those that are rude about it.

 

Also this whole thing with freedoms. Yeah we have freedoms with in the latter of the law. You can have freedoms and rights as long as you don't step over my freedoms and rights of being safe and living my life.

This is a flawed statement because it is based on a flawed premise. You're right to life in not being infringed by others' rights to liberty.

 

Sounds like you don´t really know what rights entail.

I hope, for the sake of your argument, that you don´t drive a car - because if you do, then (by smoking a pack of cigarettes every day) I'm harming less people than you.

 

I've always disagreed with that supposed Franklin quote. Freedom and security both exist on a spectrum. Pure liberty involves no security, and pure security has no liberty. We must always seek to balance the needs of both.

 

Sometimes, though, people and government pursue security by means that are either pointless or futile (or both). Security at airports today is woefully misguided and inadequate (as seen here), makes no sense and yet continues on anyway, possibly for the sake of appearances.