Thursday, December 22, 2005
HOW CREEPY IS WIRETAPPING?
_________________________________________________________________________________
Breakfast with Bwana
DECEMBER 22, 2005
HOW CREEPY IS WIRETAPPING?:
When I wrote “In Defense Of Bush And Blondes” I said: “No, I have not lost my mind. But, never fear, I am working on it.” Well, I am pleased (?) to report success.
My “defense” of the wiretaps provoked much comment, some supportive, some not. The most pungent was this from (identity withheld) who wrote:
“… just because the worse hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t. I can’t think of a group of yahoos I’d trust LESS with this kind of power. These people have shown so little regard for truth, reasonable dissent, due process, civil liberties and most sadly for the basic tenets of the Constitution that I simply cannot believe that YOU OF ALL PEOPLE! wouldn’t be more horrified that they’ve broken the law simply because they believe the result of breaking the law is more significant than the act of abiding by the law in the first place.
‘The danger is always there that such means and powers can be abused. However, I don’t think that there is any chance that Mr. Bush will refuse to surrender the Presidency in January 2009 when his term is over. Neither do I perceive that in the year during which The New York Times sat on this particular story before finally going public with it, there has been any erosion of our liberties.’
“Oh come on. The CIA was monitoring a group of elderly Quakers in Florida who were worried about military recruiting in their local high schools. Bushie likely won’t declare himself dictator in ‘09, but let’s see how funny it is when they come knocking on my door because I jokingly refer to myself as a socialist. Or because I’ve attended a rally for gay rights. Or because I once voted for Ralph Nader.
“The other day ___ was talking about the “file” the ___ kept on __. That’s creepy – and I don’t relish the idea of this administration (or anyone else) keeping a file on me.
“Anyway, now you know that I do read these things!!”
Well, I responded that there has not been any violation of law shown, at least as of yet, and I do not see that any Constitutional violation is shown. I do understand that people on both sides have advanced arguments and contentions to support their respective positions. Also, I am grateful that s/he reads these “things.”
Let me take a look at this issue in a different way. First, though, I must say that although I share concerns about this President and this Administration – concerns enhanced by the news that former Attorney General Ashcroft allowed the FBI to conduct surveillance on “activist” groups – I would have that same concern about a “moderate” as well as a “liberal” President and his/her Administration. It seems to me that if I contend there is Presidential authority for – or desirable for the President to be able to order – surveillance, then it should not matter who the President is.
I take it as a given that every American, since 9-11 if not before, has expected that our government is keeping track of foreigners who may be plotting to join the ranks of “evil doers.” I also take it as a given that if the government knows or has reasonable cause to believe that someone within the US (a Timothy McVeigh type or a terrorist with links to al-qaeda or any other such group) is engaged in plotting to commit an act of sabotage or terror, then the government is keeping track of that too. The entire purpose of this “keeping track of” to me is prevention of the offending attack and the damage, destruction and death that would follow. And note that I distinguish between “foreigners” and people within the US only because domestic surveillance may require different rules. I use the word “may” because I really wrestle with the issue when dealing with suspicion of a “criminal offense” vs. a terrorist type of attack for which prevention rather than prosecution is the key.
Whether this kind of activity is being tracked inside or outside the US, I expect that whatever laws are in place for such monitoring will be followed. But, I also have in mind that this “keeping track of” is being done in good faith and because there is some good (or good enough) reason to be doing so. The definition of “good” reason or “good enough” reason, for me depends on the circumstances and the exigencies of the situation. Perforce, this type of surveillance is not “unreasonable.”
Now, if the President, or Vice or any of their creepy friends should decide to use the surveillance for some other purpose, for political advantage, to collect information on American citizens, or to abuse people, then clearly the same would be prohibited by the Constitution and also by many laws already on the books.
It seems to me that some sort of safeguards need to be in place to ensure that the system is not being abused and those safeguards need also to be of the type that will not compromise “necessary” secrecy.
From everything I know, if the results of surveillance are used for prosecution (different from prevention) then there is ALWAYS judicial review of whether the surveillance was unreasonable under constitutional standards or otherwise unlawful.
For me, the distinction between prevention and prosecution provides the answer.
Cheerz… Bwana Claus
_________________________________________________________________________________
Breakfast with Bwana
DECEMBER 22, 2005
HOW CREEPY IS WIRETAPPING?:
When I wrote “In Defense Of Bush And Blondes” I said: “No, I have not lost my mind. But, never fear, I am working on it.” Well, I am pleased (?) to report success.
My “defense” of the wiretaps provoked much comment, some supportive, some not. The most pungent was this from (identity withheld) who wrote:
“… just because the worse hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t. I can’t think of a group of yahoos I’d trust LESS with this kind of power. These people have shown so little regard for truth, reasonable dissent, due process, civil liberties and most sadly for the basic tenets of the Constitution that I simply cannot believe that YOU OF ALL PEOPLE! wouldn’t be more horrified that they’ve broken the law simply because they believe the result of breaking the law is more significant than the act of abiding by the law in the first place.
‘The danger is always there that such means and powers can be abused. However, I don’t think that there is any chance that Mr. Bush will refuse to surrender the Presidency in January 2009 when his term is over. Neither do I perceive that in the year during which The New York Times sat on this particular story before finally going public with it, there has been any erosion of our liberties.’
“Oh come on. The CIA was monitoring a group of elderly Quakers in Florida who were worried about military recruiting in their local high schools. Bushie likely won’t declare himself dictator in ‘09, but let’s see how funny it is when they come knocking on my door because I jokingly refer to myself as a socialist. Or because I’ve attended a rally for gay rights. Or because I once voted for Ralph Nader.
“The other day ___ was talking about the “file” the ___ kept on __. That’s creepy – and I don’t relish the idea of this administration (or anyone else) keeping a file on me.
“Anyway, now you know that I do read these things!!”
Well, I responded that there has not been any violation of law shown, at least as of yet, and I do not see that any Constitutional violation is shown. I do understand that people on both sides have advanced arguments and contentions to support their respective positions. Also, I am grateful that s/he reads these “things.”
Let me take a look at this issue in a different way. First, though, I must say that although I share concerns about this President and this Administration – concerns enhanced by the news that former Attorney General Ashcroft allowed the FBI to conduct surveillance on “activist” groups – I would have that same concern about a “moderate” as well as a “liberal” President and his/her Administration. It seems to me that if I contend there is Presidential authority for – or desirable for the President to be able to order – surveillance, then it should not matter who the President is.
I take it as a given that every American, since 9-11 if not before, has expected that our government is keeping track of foreigners who may be plotting to join the ranks of “evil doers.” I also take it as a given that if the government knows or has reasonable cause to believe that someone within the US (a Timothy McVeigh type or a terrorist with links to al-qaeda or any other such group) is engaged in plotting to commit an act of sabotage or terror, then the government is keeping track of that too. The entire purpose of this “keeping track of” to me is prevention of the offending attack and the damage, destruction and death that would follow. And note that I distinguish between “foreigners” and people within the US only because domestic surveillance may require different rules. I use the word “may” because I really wrestle with the issue when dealing with suspicion of a “criminal offense” vs. a terrorist type of attack for which prevention rather than prosecution is the key.
Whether this kind of activity is being tracked inside or outside the US, I expect that whatever laws are in place for such monitoring will be followed. But, I also have in mind that this “keeping track of” is being done in good faith and because there is some good (or good enough) reason to be doing so. The definition of “good” reason or “good enough” reason, for me depends on the circumstances and the exigencies of the situation. Perforce, this type of surveillance is not “unreasonable.”
Now, if the President, or Vice or any of their creepy friends should decide to use the surveillance for some other purpose, for political advantage, to collect information on American citizens, or to abuse people, then clearly the same would be prohibited by the Constitution and also by many laws already on the books.
It seems to me that some sort of safeguards need to be in place to ensure that the system is not being abused and those safeguards need also to be of the type that will not compromise “necessary” secrecy.
From everything I know, if the results of surveillance are used for prosecution (different from prevention) then there is ALWAYS judicial review of whether the surveillance was unreasonable under constitutional standards or otherwise unlawful.
For me, the distinction between prevention and prosecution provides the answer.
Cheerz… Bwana Claus
_________________________________________________________________________________
