Wiretapping: Yay or nay?

What about them? If it is a national security matter, then it gets treated as such. American citizens have fought for the side opposing America in past wars - two of the German saboteurs landed in 1942 were American citizens. That case had even led to settled law on the matter - to wit, ex parte Quirin. At least it was settled prior to the rise of the imperial judiciary in the United States.

It's not a new phenomenon - it's actually pretty old - going back to America's efforts to win independence (see Benedict Arnold).

 

"imperial judiciary"

 

Yes, those damned fools who want citizens to keep some vestiges of civil liberty. How dare they!

 

Here's an interesting story. Do you potentially have this issue in the US?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/meanwhile-down-south-one-slips-past-the-keeper/2008/07/17/1216163057648.html

That court confirmed the right of the Federal Government to interfere in decisions affecting the basic human rights of Australian citizens.

We enter the province of the Attorney-General's magic certificates in so-called security cases.

Syed Mustapha Hussain is the man at the eye of this storm. He's a 24-year-old Australian citizen. He came to this country with his family in 1991, went to school in Melbourne and enrolled in a bachelor of medical science degree course at La Trobe University.

Hussain studied there for one semester before receiving a scholarship to the Islamic University of Medina in Saudi Arabia. In 2005 he returned to Australia for a holiday and while he was here the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation came calling and interviewed him.

Following that discussion with the authorities his passport was cancelled by the then minister for foreign affairs, Alexander Downer, and his application for a new passport was refused.

The decision was based on an adverse security clearance given by ASIO, an organisation whose infallibility can never be questioned. ASIO declared that if Hussain travelled overseas he might get involved with people who would pose a risk to Australia's security or even to the security of a foreign country.

When Hussain sought a review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal the then attorney-general, Philip Ruddock, started issuing certificates that forbade the disclosure of the ASIO assessment.

Not only that, Hussain's lawyers, Julian Burnside and Laurence Maher, were not allowed to see the reasons for the adverse security assessment, which as you might imagine made the job of successfully challenging the original decision well nigh impossible.

So here we have hearings, whose outcome affects the liberty and movement of a citizen, large parts of which are held in secret, with the citizen's counsel removed from the proceedings and the essential documents kept from them.

Further, the attorney-general's reasons for issuing these certificates can amount to a meaningless fudge of bureaucratese.

In this case Ruddock declared: "Disclosure of the contents of the documents ? would be contrary to the public interest because the disclosure would prejudice security." End of explanation

 

Homeland Security Cost-Benefit Analysis

This is an excellent paper by Ohio State political science professor John Mueller. Titled "The Quixotic Quest for Invulnerability: Assessing the Costs, Benefits, and Probabilities of Protecting the Homeland," it lays out some common send (sic) premises and policy implications.

The premises:

1. The number of potential terrorist targets is essentially infinite.

2. The probability that any individual target will be attacked is essentially zero.

3. If one potential target happens to enjoy a degree of protection, the agile terrorist usually can readily move on to another one.

4. Most targets are "vulnerable" in that it is not very difficult to damage them, but invulnerable in that they can be rebuilt in fairly short order and at tolerable expense.

5. It is essentially impossible to make a very wide variety of potential terrorist targets invulnerable except by completely closing them down.

The policy implications:

1. Any protective policy should be compared to a "null case": do nothing, and use the money saved to rebuild and to compensate any victims.

2. Abandon any effort to imagine a terrorist target list.

3. Consider negative effects of protection measures: not only direct cost, but inconvenience, enhancement of fear, negative economic impacts, reduction of liberties.

4. Consider the opportunity costs, the tradeoffs, of protection measures.

Here's the abstract:

This paper attempts to set out some general parameters for coming to grips with a central homeland security concern: the effort to make potential targets invulnerable, or at least notably less vulnerable, to terrorist attack. It argues that protection makes sense only when protection is feasible for an entire class of potential targets and when the destruction of something in that target set would have quite large physical, economic, psychological, and/or political consequences. There are a very large number of potential targets where protection is essentially a waste of resources and a much more limited one where it may be effective.

Post about the paper here. Paper itself here.

 

Well, when the judiciary, unelected and unaccountable, acts as a legislative and political body rather than an interpretive one, it really isn't that far from the truth.

In fact, the Framers were rightly worried about judicial overreach, the particular variety found in the last half century.

 

It's the Court's job to protect the rights of everyone, including those who some may feel shouldn't have certain rights. If that means it finds something before a certain legislature does, that's just how it goes. I don't see you protesting when it comes to guns.

 

Aside from what KW wrote, there really isn't a distinguishable "Framer's Intent" - I have a two volume set of the debate preceding the formal Constitution and there are a number of contributing opinions, some of which are contradictory. So the idea that one can appeal to a single "Framer's Intent" in constitutional interpretation isn't really accurate, as there were a number of "Framer's Intents". We have a consensus letter of the law, but not a consensus spirit of the law.

 

This is a separate venue for discussion, but the right to bear arms (for which four jurists, who plainly can't read or more likely simply value their own politic over what the Constitution actually says and what their role is) is plain, which is why it wasn't challenged for 200 years until now.

It isn't the court's job to invent rights. It wasn't so with abolition, sufferage, or anything else in our history that entailed rights that were conveyed by the people. It isn't the job of a few in black cloth to invent new standards for rights.

But, I understand your lack of concern, so long as it suits your ideology. The rule of law be damned.

Of course there were varying opinions at the onset, I don't question that.

But, for example, do you think the Framer's would have found Louisiana's law that child rapists can be subject to capital punishment Unconstitutional? No, I think not.

You don't like the law, change it via the appropriate means.

As far as this FISA deal goes, I'd have to do more in-depth research on it to comment appropriately. I'm relatively sure that if President Bush were doing anything, say Nixonian in nature, he'd be impeached. Wiretapping of American citizens should require a warrant, but foreign nationals or suspects speaking internationally to suspect nations would be subect to wiretapping on an emergency basis, IMHO.

It seems to me the IRS has much more ability to acquire personal information without consequence than any other government agency.

 

It isn't the court's job to invent rights. It wasn't so with abolition, sufferage, or anything else in our history that entailed rights that were conveyed by the people. It isn't the job of a few in black cloth to invent new standards for rights.


The Court didn't invent any rights. It merely affirmed what was always there, but previously unrecognized. Sorry that doesn't suit you, Dennis.

As far as this FISA deal goes, I'd have to do more in-depth research on it to comment appropriately. I'm relatively sure that if President Bush were doing anything, say Nixonian in nature, he'd be impeached.

On what basis do you make that statement? That requires a Congress willing to impeach, and after the 1998 fiasco, I don't think that's ever going to happen again (no matter how justified it may be).

 

The difference is very simple: "shall not be infringed" from the Second Amendment is a very declarative statement. In the Heller case, it was patently obvious that DC had infringed upon that right.

The 4th Amendment merely prohibits "unreasonable search and seizure" - it does not make any sort of declarative prohibition. And a reasonable person can tell the difference between a law enforcement matter (which crimes are) and a national security matter (which foreign-based terrorism, drug trafficking, and human trafficking are). Furthermore, it is utterly reasonable for law enforcement, the intelligence community, and the military to at least compare notes on those matters.

If that means listening in on an American citizen whose phone number is in the little black book of a foreign terrorist, drug trafficker, or human trafficker, then so be it.

 

If that means listening in on an American citizen whose phone number is in the little black book of a foreign terrorist, drug trafficker, or human trafficker, then so be it.

And on whose judgment are we relying on if someone overseas is any of those things?

 

Such sentiment justifies tyranny.

It doesn't suit me that individuals care more about their own politic than the integrity of the rule of law. It wouldn't suit me to have my ideology or a particular issue that I approve of invented by judicial fiat. But, you've routinely expressed the idea that you and your ideology know better than anything else. By any means necessary will it be accomplished.

When the law is flexible to whims or the winds of the day, it becomes meaningless.... which is why there is a process for the conveyance of rights within our society. You don't like the law, change it. You want certain issues to be recognized as rights, legislate it. It's asinine to argue that abortion, gay marriage, and other 'rights' were 'always there' if even women's suffrage itself wasn't even there until the document was amended or the laws were changed.

It isn't within the power of the few and the unelected in black cloth who are not legislators nor conveyers of new rights, but guarantors of the rule of (actual, not wished for) law.

It is amazing enough that the courts have become so political that 4 jurists plainly either can't read the document or simply don't care what it says, which the latter is more likely the case.

For all the whining and gnashing of teeth here, I have yet to see any viable examples of the President utilizing such authority to spy on American citizens or foreign nationals for either personal or political gain or for other nefarious means. I'm personally less than trustful of the government as a general rule, but I tend to think there is a bit of overreaction here.

If he did - like Nixon did at Watergate, albeit with different methodology - do you not think the man would be impeached? Surely, he would.

Why would Congress itself convey such authority if they thought it would or could be utilized in such a fashion? Why would Obama himself reverse his stand on the issue and support it to the chagrin of his hard left base?

Like I said, the IRS has much more intrusive authority without accountability into people's lives than any other government agency, from my superficial knowledge of FISA and the involved agencies.

 

Such sentiment justifies tyranny.


Yes, because more rights for people is so in line with tyranny, isn't it? You must be so unbelievably oppressed by gays being allowed to marry.

It is amazing enough that the courts have become so political that 4 jurists plainly either can't read the document or simply don't care what it says, which the latter is more likely the case.


Puh-leeze. It's only political if you don't agree with it, Dennis.

If he did - like Nixon did at Watergate, albeit with different methodology - do you not think the man would be impeached? Surely, he would.


Nope.

 

You obviously miss the point.

It's the method by which they are instituted.

A ridiculous and asinine assertion. You've made this one routinely with not a shred of verifiable validity....

... as you've proven inept in this particular case at debasing my actual argument.

---

EDIT:

There is an appropriate thread for Constitutional issues, and I'll leave this here and carry on in the appropriate venue if the discussion warrants.

Surely you can explain why, especially considering there is a Democratic Congress with President Bush being significantly publically unpopular...

Also, I have yet to see any verifiable examples of the President utilizing such authority for the nefarious means by which you claim he instituted the law with the help of a supposedly complacent Congress.

Even the secular pseudo-messiah changed his tune on FISA.

 

Wherefore are you, Smuggler?

This is why I say "nay" on wiretapping.

 

Yeah, very creepy how they exchanged recordings of phone sex from the military couples they spied on. Yikes, I never thought I'd write a sentence like that.

 

Just once, it would be refreshing for the people involved in "leaking" such allegations to do so while it was happening, and before they have books that hinge on the sensationalism.

Now, KW, I'm not taking a side either way, because at the moment, the only thing concrete is that Congress is looking into the matter. However, from the article itself:

" NSA spokeswoman Judith Emmel said the agency's Inspector General has investigated some of the allegations and found them "unsubstantiated." Other accusations are still being looked at, she said. The NSA operates in "strict accordance with U.S. laws and regulations," she said. "Any allegation of wrongdoing by employees is thoroughly investigated" and if misconduct is discovered, "we take swift and certain remedial action."

The problem- or rather the blatant conflict of interest- as I'm sure you're aware, is that this is another allegation made by Adrienne Kinne. Kinne is a member of various anti-war, anti-Iraq protest groups, and in this case, was prompted by Bamford for his book. Both Bamford and Kinne were part of the original unsuccessful ACLU lawsuit related to this program, and already have an axe to grid.

It doesn't make the allegations either more or less true on their own, but it's kind of like putting the beef industry in charge of investigating organic vegetables. But I'm sure you already took all of this in account, and aren't jumping to conclusions before the validity is known....

(Of course, this program is likely to be continued by the next administration no matter who it is, as both Obama and McCain support the current version of the program)

 

Should there be a timtable for wiretaping?

No big terorist attack/attempt for x years and they call it of.

 

No. Usually terrorist attacks are stopped because of wiretaping and other controversial measures. Therefore if we stop using those methods we are very likely to be attacked again.

I'm usually against any action that lets my enimies know when I'm going to do something or when I'm going to stop.

Of course I'd be all for the government telling us there was a wiretaping timetable and that when it reached the end they tell us all they stopped wiretaping, when in reality they are still doing it in secret. That I could go along with.

 

Yeah, I'd love having the government lie to me too. It shouldn't be accountable to the people.

 

Would you support a fascist government? That's a sincere question. It genuinely sounds like you'd be pretty okay with some form of open fascism.

 

I don't believe anything they tell me, I expect them to lie to me. I only need to know what they do to protect me, not when or how they do it.

The American people sholdn't have to be lied to. They should be okay that the people who they appointed to protect them are doing their jobs. But since so many Americans run around screamin 1984, the people who protect us have the right to tell the nuts that they'll stop and then go right back to doing it.

Sort of like a when a crazy relative says "Don't go outside there martians are out there!" You nod and say yes you won't, he believes you but any reasonable person with you knows your lying to him.

Awww. Why would you ask that. I love democracy, I love the Republic...

In all seriousness no I hate it when the government controls our lives. But them listening to my phone calls, of which will be as likely as me winning every lottery in America and being named King of Norway. And if I am being listend to it will either be because of some legimate concern or because some bozo is abusing his power, which also is just as likely as me being King of Norway. And if said bozo abuses his power he will not only have an angry citizen he will have to endure me calliing my mom and asking where to find the Drainex in Wal-Mart followed by the riveting what size blue jeans do I where? Needless to say he would have already been punished enough after enduring my phone calls.

Do I support the Patriot Act, yes. Do I support wiretapping, yes. If the government is not interferring with my life whats wrong with what they do. Since they already no my social security number and then take a quarter of my money to throw down the drain why do I care if they know what books I got from the library or my dastardly plot to find Drainex.

Now if the government wanted to set up a secret police, set up security cameras in everyones home, bathroom, closet, ect, tell us what we can and can't read, watch, or talk about. Then I would have a problem. But them listening to a traitor talking to Bin Laden isn't facism, its common sense.

So facism, No way. Common Sense, yes.

 

But them listening to a traitor talking to Bin Laden isn't facism, its common sense.

Except that we already know the government has listened in on entirely innocent conversations, and has intentionally done so. Various government agents listened in on intimate phone calls that they knew had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. That is unacceptable.

 

,,The American people sholdn't have to be lied to. They should be okay that the people who they appointed to protect them are doing their jobs. But since so many Americans run around screamin 1984, the people who protect us have the right to tell the nuts that they'll stop and then go right back to doing it.,,
Just 12% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job, and 54% rate their performance as poor in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Voting for someone and trusting someone are two diferent things.What about the nonvoters?
With these aproval ratings,no wonder people scream 1984.
Survey conducted in february 3. 2009

Here is the link:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance