It’s time for another poll of you, our constant readers. You’ve had time to digest your thoughts and other’s commentary on the Bush administration setting up wiretapping without court approval. Does the “war on terror” justify any abridgement of our privacy or is the potential for abuse too great to allow this to continue?
A couple of points to consider in your answer. Wiretapping has been going on for a long time. It’s nothing new. Robert F Cringely’s column this week has some interesting items in that area. What is new is the institutionalization of potentially unbounded wiretaps. Is this a good thing? Remember the old saw about absolute power’s corrupting influence.
If literally every wiretap asked for under the old laws got court approval, even retroactively, why not stick with that route? We have to take Bush and Co. at their word the taps will be limited. What exactly does that mean? Limited to only every Muslim in this country might fall into that description. Is that kind of usage why they don’t want anyone to see what they are doing?
I want the terrorists stopped. I want my freedoms protected. Are these two desires impossible to have in this dangerous world? Must we turn over the keys to our freedoms to an administration which has shown a disdain for the truth in other areas? Will they return them when the threat is over? Will it ever be declared over or have we entered Orwell’s world of continual warefare that requires permanent abridgement of our cherished freedoms?
Use your freedom of expression to tell us what you think, but don’t blame us if the government decides to tap your phone as a result.
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” — Benjamin Franklin
Ever since I read that in some high school textbook many years ago, I have believed it and hoped to be able to live by it. I would be untrue to myself if I voted for anything other than a very careful use of government surveillance in the so-called “War on Terror”. Wiretaps for “just cause” should, in my opinion, only occur after (or shortly before) a legal warrant is issued.
I am strongly against warrantless wiretaps. I feel that the government has overstepped its bounds, and the fact that the democrats are not calling to impeach is a clear indication that they are part of the problem.
“Give me liberty, or give me death.” -Patrick Henry
That pretty much sums it up for me.
It’s amazing to me how far removed we’ve become from the people who settled this continent and founded this country. At one time, liberty meant more than death and state religion was an anathema.
Since Bush has appropriated the American Crown, manipulating his ascension using daddy’s power broker cronies, absolute power seems to be his goal. Not letting petty things such as the Constitution (“just a goddam piece of paper”), elections (“I know people on the Supreme Court”), faulty intelligence (“they wanted to kill my pop, so this’ll show ’em, WMDs or no”), elitism (“I used to get drunk in New Orleans”), and general incompetence (“Osama? We don’t have his cell number”), get in the way of his hunger to rule the world, he clearly doesn’t feel constrained by laws designed to guide mere mortals. Why don’t the Blow Job Police get their minds out of our leaders’ crotches and deal with truly dangerous moral and legal lapses with the same fervor as the Clinton witch-hunt? Why does Bush’s clearly illegal wiretapping arouse so little outrage in the public? Our freedoms are getting spent just like our tax dollars.
The minute you succumb to terrorists or criminals, you become no better then them. It is that difference that makes us a better society.
Why did Regan call the USSR the Evil Empire? Because they were. They imprisoned people without trial, tortured them, sent them into internal exile, and killed them. America and the west didn’t. We had principles to live by including the “rule of law”.
Now we reach a stage where international criminals have attacked us. The fact that we have not been attacked since is due more to luck then anything else.
If I were a terrorist I would enter the country through the southern border, passing myself off as from Central America. All plans would have been made before entering the country, in person and not electronically. Only a very small group of people would know the plans, the actual participants and any financier. As the 9/11 terrorists did, I would find a way to use the infrastructure to carry out the attack. It would be irresponsible to state means or targets so I’ll leave it there.
My travel would be by car or minivan, something to blend in, maybe four or five years old. Very few people are ever stopped by the police. If you are, then you are just another “wetback” looking for a better life. The attack would be done within a very short time from entering the country as the longer you are here the greater the chances of being picked up or other problem happening. To escape, I would again cross into Mexico where I would have a safe house. Suicide might be painless but a dead soldier can’t fight another battle.
If you noticed, there would be NO electronic communication. Nor would there be any travel via public transportation. Those in the know would be kept to the barest minimum, not even Bin Laden would know. The time in the country would be less then two weeks MAXIMUM. One week is better. I would be just another “spick” here illegally , looking for day jobs or a crop to harvest. Every place the “Homeland Insecurity Folks” are watching is someplace I won’t be. The FBI or Pentagon can torture all the high ranking leaders they want, none of them would know anything about this.
So is unfettered wiretapping necessary? No, the FISA court has adequate safeguards to meet the governments needs. Can the wiretapping be used to trace peaceful Americans? I think the possibility that it has is there. Should Bush be impeached? Yes !!! For illegally detaining Americans, for illegal spying on Americans, for authorizing torture in contravention of International law. If I had my way, the bum would do time for his crimes.
Against. FISA is plenty good enough. We need objective third-party oversight of this kind of stuff if we are to allow it at all and FISA barely qualifies.
I’ll said it before and I’ll say it many times again. This administration is a bunch of fascists. Look up the definition sometime and check out this article: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2.
Should we wiretap or accept this abridgment on our freedom? The president (and Karl Rove) say “yes,” this is acceptible in order to save us from terrorists. I say “no.”
Abridgment of basic rights, such as privacy, is not acceptable in this form. We must each, individually, prove we are a threat to society before we loose this right. Not we must prove we are innocent before we have such a right. Bush and Co. violate this ideal.
Furthermore, we cannot trust any one person or group to only used gathered information for its supposed intended use. History has shown us repeatedly that those in power will use information for any purpose they wish if they are able. It’s never “should we do it?” It is always “can we do it?”
So, like big business which only has one moral imperative, that is, make money and thus must be regulated lest they gather and use that money in unethical ways, we must regulate government (and the executive branch in particular at this point in time) and prevent it from overreaching in its one moral imperative, gaining power, lest they obtain and use that power in unethical ways. It should always be, for us, not “should they do it?” But rather, “should they do it ever, and if so, how can they do so that it does not infringe on the rights of individuals and society, as a whole?” Dudes, that sums up what the constitution is about and why it is a living document. We violate this document willy-nilly and we might as well burn all copies of it since it will be just useless old paper.
When did Americans become such cowards that they are more afraid of a handful of terrorists than they were of the World War Two Axis? Even against Hitler Americans did not give up so much of their liberty.
>Even against Hitler Americans did not give up so much of their liberty.
Ration cards, internment camps, martial law, etc.
The executive branch of government should not decide what is reasonable in searching american citizens. The judicial branch must do it. The FISA court balanced out secrecy and speed needs with 3rd party. There is NO reason why the president needs to go around it.
Lou
You mean the same FISA that wouldn’t let us do surveillence on Zaracarias Moussaoui? You mean the same FISA that wouldn’t let us do surveillence on Wen Ho Len the Los Alamos scientist that stole a bunch of information about making nuclear weapons for the Chinese? FISA is not the end-all solution and the cost of a mistake can be incredibly high. Surveillence decisions are not always as cut and dry as “bad guy-good guy”.
Here’s an interesting question for all of you that oppose warrantless surveillence, what about surveillence on foreigners in this country? That has never been an issue yet many of you talk about the US being the good guy because we gave foreigners the same due process that citizens get. I guess that foreigners in this country get no protections under the Constitution such as protection against un-warranted surveillence?
I support “liberal” use of wiretaps.
Everybody who thinks this is just ducky under Bush should ask themselves if it would be so swell under, say, Clinton.
No… The FISA act already gives them too much power to get a warrant AFTER a search has been done. Which leads me to believe that these illegal wiretaps performed by Bushco, Inc. were not on the up and up. More like the wiretaps during the Nixon Administration.
On another point… The order from the King, to release search engine results to get to the bottom of who’s searching for porn. Another red herring. There aren’t enough prisons on the planet to house everyone who seeks out porn on the internet.
It seems like the Bushco, Inc. House of Cards has hit a hurricaine, and is falling down.
If you ask me, the amazing thing isn’t that a powerful administration would seek to abuse its power – what is truly unvelievable is that people who would, on the one hand assert without hesitation that “America is the greatest nation on earth!” would, on the other hand, unquestioningly defend the administration in undertaking the dismantling, piece by piece, of the liberties and freedoms which *make* America the greatest nation on earth. Our greatness is secured by our freedoms – if we consent to the loss of our freedoms, we are hastening our fall from greatness. It makes no difference which end of the political spectrum you are on – it is every American’s duty and responsibility to oppose and to fight against destruction of American liberties, *especially* when the destruction is inititiated by the government.
The issue is improperly cast. The real question is how much law breaking we will tolerate. At this point the President claims that he is above the law and untouchable. He can declare someone (anyone apparently) an “Enemy Combatant” and hold them, without any charge or notification to anyone, for as long as he wants. He has “interpreted” his signature on a document prohibiting torture in a way that says he doesn’t have to follow it.
He can tap any phone or listen to any conversation, watch any e-mail and monitor network traffic in any way he wants with out concerning himself about the constitution, that is ”just a goddam piece of paper” as he is quoted as saying.
NO, no, no! There is no way anyone can do these things. We should impeach the entire bunch in Government on the spot if they even try to allow “ANY” or “ALL” of these approaches.
Remember, “Life is dangerous, in the end it is going to kill you, no matter what!”
I’m Canadian, but I’ll say “unbounded wiretaps” if we can tap into George’s phone calls.
-ph
Let’s impeach Bush and get rid of this gang of liars while we still can.
“Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. ” George W. Bush.
Apparently the terrorists have done a very good job of touching the foundation of America and destroying it completely.
Wiretaps are not the issue, the issue is the rule of law. The president is required to follow the laws of the country, and if he doesn’t think they don’t fit the needs to the country, he can lobby Congress to get them legally changed.
What our current president claims is that he, by virtue of being the president, is above the rule of law, and that he can do whatever he thinks is right, because the laws of the land he rules do not apply to him. And just for that type of thought the man and his administration should be impeached immediately, because it is treasonous to the very core of the american heritage and constitution. A president that does not believe in the institutions of his own country has no right to lead the country. Dictators are the type of leaders that think the way that Bush and his administration think.
But we get the leadership we deserve… after all, this country voted this administration in for a second four year term, ignoring (or should that be ignorantly?) not looking at the past as a predictor of the future.
We’ve been frittering away our liberties for years now. Many people don’t just want security and safety, they want a guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen to them in their life. In exchange for chasing this fantasy they fall for anything which seems to provide increased security and protection. They vote or condone or allow loss of precious liberty as a tradeoff. The hard part is getting liberty back once its lost and that can’t happen, not within the system. It’s a shame.
I’m of 2 minds.
If the nation were invaded by an army, if we were fighting hand to hand, tank to tank in the Dakotas and Texas against an enemy, I would say: first things first, survival over liberties.
In this case, though? Say we were not in the Middle East (through a combination of Jewish/fundamentalist and vestigial Cold War policies) supporting everything Israel did. Say we were not in the Middle East to make the world safe for the oil companies, GM, and Ford. Saw we were not in the Middle East in order to enforce worldwide hegemony and a global empire for our forms of capitalism and ‘democracy.’
Would we then even come to the islamic terrorists’ attention? I don’t think so.
It’s amazing to me that so many years after Orwell’s 1984, we could have forgotten its message. Or that ‘conservatives’ who hated the communists above all others, would want ‘their President’ to have Stalinist-level powers.
My guess is that most readers of Dvorak Uncensored will agree with me that these warrantless intercepts ought to be illegal, and that Bush and Cheney are displaying incredible cheek to be defending them in the name of ‘freedom.’
Awake said it best.
It is the rule a law we’re talking about. Duh had a law that allowed extraordinary wiretapping with approval from a three judge panel, and he circumvented it on purpose. He broke the law, thus he is a criminal and should be impeached.
I read somewhere (but don’t have the time to verify) that this body had never turned down a wiretap request, yet that still wasn’t good enough for the Duh.
This should be real easy for all but neocons.
A president that does not believe in the institutions of his own country has no right to lead the country.
You mean like the president’s role as commander in chief of the military? You’re right, Clinton should have been impeached for refusing the Sudan’s offer of Bin Laden because of concerns over trial procedure, not recognizing the preisdent’s power to wage war.
Here’s what the 9-11 Commission had to say about the supposed offer by Sudan to deliver up Osama Bin Laden:
Of course, the right wing never acknowledges this finding by the commission, preferring to believe such authorities as Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, and Fox “News,” relying on “former Sudanese officials.”
I think what you old farts and noobies to the tech world have to realize is the change in technology when it comes to wiretaps. It is not an individual listening to random phone calls it is computers culling through a mass of transmissions looking for keywords and other criteria from international calls. I do believe the laws should be updated as the technology has made some laws obsolete.
What will happen when terror strikes the mainland again? The left will cry foul with the argument “Why didn’t we know what the bad guys were doing before it happened?”
You can’t have it both ways!
Before everyone loses their mind about this, let’s be clear that there are two separate and distinct issues:
1. Does the President currently have legal authority to conduct warrant-less surveillance on US citizens?
2. Should the President have such authority?
To the first item, from what I understand of the law and case law, he *does* in fact have legal authority to conduct surveillance on American citizens without a warrant. He does because the Constitution grants him the power to protect the nation, because we are officially and legally at war and because of the way the FISA law is written. It is likely this will eventually go to the Supreme Court. People should prepare themselves for the fact that the President would most likely win such a court case.
Whether he should actually have that authority is a different question. I do believe that there should be oversight into surveillance but I think that oversight should be in a review process perhaps by another branch periodically (like monthly or bi-yearly) rather than two weeks after they start. One of the problems with FISA is that the judges habitually review the warrants with the same guidelines as standard warrants and many times the evidence for justification simply isn’t there yet even after 15 days like in the case of Wen Ho Len.
For those adamant against the President having this power, here are some things to ponder. What constitutes “surveillance” such that it requires a warrant? Does that include the FBI using cameras to watch potential criminals? Does that include watching Internet traffic in such a way that they do not need cooperation from an ISP? What about foreigners? Many of you that argue against this type of surveillance also argue that foreigners should be given the same rights like due process as US citizens. Does that protection include protection against warrant-less surveillance?
This is issue is not so cut and dry.
Actually, there are more than two ways. You can follow the law as it is written, until such time as you can get the law changed. There is no evidence that _legal_ wiretaps could not have been undertaken, or that following the law in any way would have impeded anyones investigation of anything. If he cannot operate within the law, the President is obligated to work to change the law, not simply to disregard the parts he doesn’t like.
post # 10 “The executive branch of government should not decide what is reasonable in searching american citizens. The judicial branch must do it. The FISA court balanced out secrecy and speed needs with 3rd party. There is NO reason why the president needs to go around it.
Lou”
Lou, you are absolutely correct. This should be an impeachable offense. I am, by all measures, a moderately conservative Republican. I saw absolutely no reason to impeach Clinton for the Whitewater/Lewinsky scandal. How can you convict a man for losing money on a real estate development deal or getting a little extra at the office?
But, when you break basic American law then flaunt it in the faces of those very American’s you have vowed to protect, you deserve to go down, and go down hard.
“it is computers culling through a mass of transmissions looking for keywords and other criteria from international calls.”
That’s encouraging…keywords identifying terrorists. Would that kind of keyword identification have the same degree of specificity as the time I keyed “dog collars” into Google, looking for a new restraint for my pooch, and would up at “Cleo’s S&M” website?
If anyone, left or right, is concerned with knowing “what the bad guys were doing before it happened”, maybe you can convince our future Commanders In Cheif to pay attention when PDB’s titled, “Bin Laden determined to strike in US” land on their desk. The emphasis, there, is on “future”.