Posted on 01/03/2006 1:45:06 AM PST by SBD1
You don't have to be a libertarian whack-job to be concerned about a concetration of power. If this were not an issue that hit a cord with Americans we wouldn't be talking about it.
The only question we need to consistently ask those who put down expressions of concern is whether they feel completely comfortable if a President Hillary Clinton would have this same power? If they say yes, they are legitimate. If they waffle, they are just Bushbots or closet monarchists.
It depends on the order. The surveillance orders recapitulate statutory language, and are therefore not bothersome to Congress. But Congress did circumscribe Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (not that he followed their grant, and not that he thought he needed it anyway).
Others have posted, at some point, executive initiative becomes a political issue. There will be much invasion of privacy as the public will accept.
Citing the prior usage by Carter and Clinton hardly instills confidence in me. The Dem hypocrisy is glaring, but I'm not sure that this is the best selling point.
"I guarantee that if this were Al Gore doing this right now, ..... to support this President is a bit sickening in my opinion."
There is no doubt that an Al Gore or Hitlery Clinton would also face substantial criticism were they involved in this fight against the Islamists. From both the right and the left.
However, using NSA (a military agency) to track communications to and from our Islamist (aka "al Qaeda")enemies *no matter where they are* would not be my concern.
The rise of transient and anonymous phone numbers, disposable email addresses, free personal cryptograpy, and widespread VoIP availability has made FISA a bit of an anachronism for certain types of operations (even with the 72 hour window).
bump.
"Better to have al Qaeda cut my head off than to give up everything that makes life worth living."
You and Craig Crawford have the same point of view, even ending your screeds with identical sentiments.
I suggest you buy a ticket to Kuwait City, outfit yourself appropriately, cross the border and join in the fight against the "al Qaeda of Mesopotamia". They *will* cut your head off, and they do not care about your liberties.
Year------Number of------Number of------Number of
-------------FISA------------FISA----------FISA
--------Applications----Applications----Applications
---------Presented--------Approved--------Rejected
1979------- 199------------- 207-------------- 0
1980------- 319------------- 322-------------- 0
1981------- 431------------- 433-------------- 0
1982------- 473------------- 475-------------- 0
1983------- 549------------- 549-------------- 0
1984------- 635------------- 635-------------- 0
1985------- 587------------- 587-------------- 0
1986------- 573------------- 573-------------- 0
1987------- 512------------- 512-------------- 0
1988------- 534------------- 534-------------- 0
1989------- 546------------- 546-------------- 0
1990------- 595------------- 595-------------- 0
1991------- 593------------- 593-------------- 0
1992------- 484------------- 484-------------- 0
1993------- 509------------- 509-------------- 0
1994------- 576------------- 576-------------- 0
1995------- 697------------- 697-------------- 0
1996------- 839------------- 839-------------- 0
1997------- 749------------- 748-------------- 0
1998------- 796------------- 796-------------- 0
1999------- 886------------- 880-------------- 0
2000------ 1005------------ 1012-------------- 0
2001------- 932------------- 934-------------- 0
2002------ 1228------------ 1228-------------- 0
2003------ 1727------------ 1724-------------- 4
2004------ 1758------------ 1754-------------- 0
Well, I'm sure the government could come up with something that would be guaranteed to make us 100% safe from terrorists. I'm not sure I would like what they came up with, though...
'Course, then it wouldn't work, after all...
There should be a limit on how much liberty we give up for safety. Each citizen draws the line in his own place. I guess you draw it a little closer to "safety". May your chains rest on ye lightly, friend...
Congressional expression was protective of 4th amendment (requirement for a warrant) when the target of surveillance was a US citizen.
Define "tapping".
Is that when someone "listens" to your conversations? When they monitor your outbound calls to another known al Qaeda number?
"Why wouldn't you approve of using the same tools against a McVeigh? Hamas?"
SJ Res 23, 9/13/2001
"...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Love the tin foil hat you're wearing.
Is that when someone "listens" to your conversations? When they monitor your outbound calls to another known al Qaeda number?
I think the issue is obtaining the contents of communications. In the circumstances we are in, review of contents would seem to be of equal interest on both parties in the communications. That is, all of my outbound calls should be monitored, not just the ones to Al Qaeda, if I am implicated in a terrorist network, and regardless of my citizenship.
The administration holds, I think, that it is reasonable to undertake this interception of contents without obtaining a warrant.
There has been no offical confirmation anyhere that NSA was listening to the contents of anyone's communications in this particular operation.
I am of the opinion - nothing more - that they were capturing the connections between known and (previously) unknown individuals for the purpose of building a network diagram of al Qaeda operators and sympathizers, whether internationally or here in the US.
Also that FISA warrants were subsequently requested against individuals found to have any communication patterns of note.
This approach would be permissable under Jabara.
SJ Res 23, 9/13/2001 ... against those [who] aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
So absent some linkage to 9/11, the surveillance would be unauthorized? That would be a pain to carry through in court proceedings. Are we going to wait for the successor to ALQaeda to mount a successful attack before we athorize warrantless monitoring of their adherants? Or are we going to grant the office of president wide berth in use of judgement as to who is a worthy target in prosecuting this war?
No, I hope the chains are heavy. Crushingly heavy. Maybe then people will understand.
Here's a "for instance". Congress just rewrote the bankruptcy laws.
How many folks know the following? During the colonial years, England developed a nasty little habit. If a person was in debt, it made no sense to imprison them, because then they couldn't work and pay back the debt.
So they came up with a nice little plan, they would imprison YOUR CHILDREN.
And of course there was only about a 25 percent chance that your child would live through disease and starvation.
When you know the REASONS the founders wrote the stuff they did, you become far less willing to give it up.
But, in fact, probably not.
I am of the opinion - nothing more - that they were capturing the connections between known and (previously) unknown individuals for the purpose of building a network diagram of al Qaeda operators and sympathizers, whether internationally or here in the US.
You might be right, but that would be a darn weak protective/preventive measure.
As others have said, the only ralistic approach to communications is to assume that 100% of the contents can be and is intercepted - act accordingly and you'll be fine.
Under the specific conditions of a legally-declared enemy (SJ Res 23, 8/13/2001), yes, I'd be OK with any President exercising the role of Commander In Chief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.