Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[ZendoBro]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

Well said toasty. I don't understand how people can wish harm on you either for wanting a system of checks on balances. I understand during times of war that the constitution is often pushed aside, but let's not forget the innate rights we have as Americans.

[toasty]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

After my previous post, I stumbled upon an essay that contained a passage that sums it up nicely and puts it better than I can. Better late than never:

If a man believes in America, he fights for her principles. He doesn?t cut and run from the US constitution. America isn?t the people who live in it. There have been many people who have come and gone and called themselves Americans. Our soldiers didn?t fight for them. We will come and go, and our soldiers do not fight for us. They fight for something more noble, more grand. They fight for the idea that is America.

They fight so that men may be free. They fight so that we do not bow to one man who rules us all. They fight so that we may have rights that cannot be taken or given away. They fight so that we may believe whatever we choose. That is called liberty. That is called America.

If anyone is interested in reading the whole thing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/freedom-isnt-free_b_12870.html

[delirious]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

Please explain how a law that permits you to wiretap a phone when an exigency exists and get a warrant after the fact encumbers the government from "moving quickly."

Don't hold your breath

[superdave]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

There is a system to check the NSA from abusing its power. No one said anything about not having checks to avoid abuses of power. I mentioned this in one of my earlier posts.

And where does the 18,000 monitored calls number come from? I don't recall an official number being issued.

There's an interesting op-ed article in the NY Times today that explains why Bush has the right to allow surveillance I suggest you read. In case you don't find the article, it mentions how the FISA court is not a rubber stamp court and could possibly hinder investigations due to the bureacratic steps necessary to obtain a warrant.

To my understanding, FISA and laws we had before the Patriot Act didn't work because 9/11 happened. We had terrorists scheming to fly planes into buildings that were being monitored, but couldn't react or communicate quick enough to stop the attacks. Imo, we should be doing all we can to stop them before we're attacked again.

[toasty]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

There is a system to check the NSA from abusing its power. No one said anything about not having checks to avoid abuses of power. I mentioned this in one of my earlier posts.

You are right, there are checks to keep the NSA from abusing its power. By allowing warrantless searches, Bush effectively does an end-around those checks. In fact, warrantless searches are the very definition of unchecked power. Dave, I've always found you to be a reasonable guy, and I seriously can't even believe I'm having this discussion with you.

There's an interesting op-ed article in the NY Times today that explains why Bush has the right to allow surveillance I suggest you read. In case you don't find the article, it mentions how the FISA court is not a rubber stamp court and could possibly hinder investigations due to the bureacratic steps necessary to obtain a warrant.

That op-ed is pretty light on actual authority, citing to the same broad rights under the Constitution and the authorization of force post-9/11 to justify these warrantless searches upon which the President relies. Yeah, it says that the FISA court isn't a rubber stamp, but it still only denied 4 requests for warrants out of many thousands ( see http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...5631-6780r.htm -- can't find a cite to something that sets forth the exact number of requests, but there are articles all over the news that suggest that it is somewhere between 18K and 20K). I suspect that the "bureacratic steps" the op-ed references is code for the fact that the FISA cout has found it necessary to modify nearly two hundred of the Bush admin's requests -- far, far more than the previous administrations that operated under FISA which collectively had, ahem, 2 modified. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...ml?source=mypi. Bush doesn't like being questioned, that should be well-known to all by now, and he believes that he is above the law and can do whatever the fuck he wants to do.

To my understanding, FISA and laws we had before the Patriot Act didn't work because 9/11 happened. We had terrorists scheming to fly planes into buildings that were being monitored, but couldn't react or communicate quick enough to stop the attacks. Imo, we should be doing all we can to stop them before we're attacked again.

9/11 did not happen because of a lack of intelligence. Don't tell me that 9/11 happened because no one knew who Mohammed Atta was -- at a minimum, Clinton and Bush had information available to them that, if synthesized and utilized properly, could have alerted them to what he was all about. If there is blame to be placed, it should be directed at what was done with the intelligence once we had it. Agencies weren't sharing information properly.

[superdave]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

I agree that we did have the intelligence and information to stop 9/11, but we didn't. The FBI had information on Atta and the Able Danger Group part of the Defense Intelligence Agency knew about the terrorist cells in the U.S. The problem was that these groups weren't allowed or didn't want to communicate with each other. We've got a government bureacry that is so large and ineffective that it can't protect its citizens.

Simply put, a change needed to be made after 9/11 because the current intelligence structure wasn't effective. If what we had before worked, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. So, the government passed the Patriot Act and the President now allows the NSA to act on its own discretion to act quickly to stop terrorists. I think we can all agree there probably are terrorists currently in the country planning another attack.

I understand everyone's concern for violations of civil liberties, but I see some people using this as a political weapon to attack Bush. I do hope the NSA doesn't abuse its authority and proper oversight actually happens.

[toasty]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

Simply put, a change needed to be made after 9/11 because the current intelligence structure wasn't effective. If what we had before worked, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. So, the government passed the Patriot Act and the President now allows the NSA to act on its own discretion to act quickly to stop terrorists. I think we can all agree there probably are terrorists currently in the country planning another attack.

I understand everyone's concern for violations of civil liberties, but I see some people using this as a political weapon to attack Bush. I do hope the NSA doesn't abuse its authority and proper oversight actually happens.

I don't think you'll find any rational person that would disagree with the idea that we needed to make some changes in the way our intelligence is handled -- 9/11 showed us that. Those provisions of the Patriot Act make some sense, and should certainly be kept in place. I do wonder at times why the guy in charge of US intel pre-9/11 and before we went into Iraq received a fucking medal, but that's a discussion for another day.

One thing that is rarely discussed is that the warrantless searches Bush has been doing were proposed for inclusion in an early draft of the Patriot Act, met fierce resistance from both sides of the aisle, and were summarily removed. To me, that is very telling. Bush seeks warrantless searches. Congress shoots him down. Bush signs a secret executive order to do them anyway. Alarming hubris, imo.

And yes, there are some folks on the left that are using this wiretap issue on a political basis to attack Bush. There are also 4th Amendment conservatives on the right that are pissed about it as well, though, so it isn't as if this is something the left has invented to harm Bush.

[superdave]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

I believe Congress is back next month and will have to look at the Patriot Act quickly before it expires again. They need to get something passed permanently and take into account whether what the President is allowing the NSA to do right now is legal. The debates should be interesting.