Home > Political Ranting > How Far?

How Far?

February 2nd, 2006

Many people, some commenting in this blog, feel that they are willing to give up their 4th Amendment rights when it comes to warrantless wiretapping. Bill Maher, in fact, was a surprise entry in this category. You know how I feel about this, especially when it comes to the bogus reasons Bush has given regarding how it will supposedly aid in the War on Terror™.

So let me ask this: How far would you go? How far would the president and the security agencies have to go before you did object?

How about, for example, a specific wiretap on your phone and the NSA recording all of your calls without a warrant to do so? Is it just that the NSA data-mining project is generalized and you feel it doesn’t really apply to you personally?

No? Still OK with that? All right. Then how about the FBI coming to your home and performing a search through your possessions, again without a warrant, again under the logic of it being necessary for fighting terrorism? If you were okay with the wiretap, then you should be okay with this: it’s the same level of rights violation, an unwarranted search. But if it crosses the line for you, then you should re-evaluate your acceptance of the wiretapping.

But if we still haven’t crossed the line, then how about an arrest without a warrant? We are assuming, after all, that you are being arrested in good faith, that the FBI truly believes that you are a possible terror suspect, and that secrecy and speed are vital to performing their task. So the charges and evidence against you are a secret (just like the wiretapping program was), and they don’t bother to get a warrant for your arrest (it would slow down the process, they claim, and besides, the president signed a finding or something, all just like in the wiretapping case). And since (again, like the NSA wiretapping) it’s giving an advantage to the terrorists to know we’re going after them, all the details of the arrest–and the fact that there has been one–are classified and no one is told. If someone does tell, that’s endangering national security. So as far as anyone else knows, you’ve simply disappeared.

Still okay with it? Still trust the government to protect your rights and serve justice to you without judicial oversight or public scrutiny? Again, note that all of this is precisely in line with the logic of keeping the wiretaps warrantless and classified; the only variable I’m changing here is how much it affects you personally. Everything else is constant.

So once more, if anywhere along the line, you feel that the government does not have the right to do any of these things to you, then you should, in principle, object just as strongly to the NSA wiretapping without warrants.

But if you are okay with all of that in the name of national security, then welcome to the new police state. Personally, I don’t want to live there, but then I like to live dangerously.

Categories: Political Ranting Tags: by
  1. Brad
    February 2nd, 2006 at 15:43 | #1

    “So once more, if anywhere along the line, you feel that the government does not have the right to do any of these things to you …”

    I disagree, and I don’t think you should try and force your ‘black and white’ rationalisation on us. For you it might be a case of ‘everything or nothing’, but me, I don’t mind at all if they listen in on my phone calls, and don’t see how my agreement to that means an inevitable home invasion later down the line.

    When it came to ‘Separation of Church and State’ we had opposing views but you convinced me that your position was correct because the American legal system, as it stands, would possibly allow a gradual progression over time from the current state to a repressive theocracy; or allow such to happen without requiring any additional ‘permission’ from me. But if I agree to wire taps the government won’t be able to start searching my home on the same legislation; they’ll have to seek new approval for the new step. Won’t they? I’m ignorant of what’s going on over there in the USA; if they’ve just come up with rules saying “we can do anything” then that’s bad. If they’ve introduced legislation allowing monitoring of telephone calls – but only that – then that’s fine with me.

  2. Luis
    February 2nd, 2006 at 15:55 | #2

    Brad: I think you misunderstand me. You are objecting to the “all or nothing” nature of my example, but that is exactly what principles are all about–you can’t compromise a principle “only a little,” like being “only a little” pregnant. It’s an all-or-nothing proposition by nature. And the principle I am outlining is the principle of judicial oversight on criminal investigations. What you object to is the degree, but my point is that the principle is the same. If judicial oversight is needed on one, it should be required on all because in all cases abuse is possible.

  3. ykw
    February 3rd, 2006 at 02:15 | #3

    I think the nsa thing might not cater to getting a warrant since they might be picking up random calls and mining vast amounts of data (i.e. calls) looking for terrorists.

    I wonder what algorithm they are using? They probably don’t want to say since if they do, the bad guys will better know how to avoid it.

    Perhaps we need a new category of surveilance called “cell phone data mining”, or something like that.

    Perhaps we need to some laws to regulate exactly what one can do in there.

    Personally, I don’t mind if someone listens to cell phones and looks for terrorists.

  4. inlandchi
    February 3rd, 2006 at 10:49 | #4

    I agree with you 100 per cent. I just wonder what happened to our supposedly free society? I don’t see much difference these days between America and some previous totalitarian states like Nazi-controlled Germany or the former USSR. Though I’m not American, I recognize their policy influence on the rest of the world, including Japan, where we will probably soon have all “foreigners” INCLUDING RESIDENTS stopped and fingerprinted and photographed when we (re)enter Japan. So we will have this fingerprinting which will amount to a kind of “pass” for non-Japanese only. Discrimination aimed at a group of people deemed more “suspicious” than others, based on their ancestry. State-applied prejudice. Just as it was in Germany and Russia. Just as it now is in America.

    And now the American government wants to start listening to private citizen’s phone calls. I think I heard that they are already screening and intercepting Internet email and communications and I guess I presumed that they were already also listening in on transatlantic calls. This whole loss of the right to privacy just because of a supposed “terrorist” threat, which I think is more than a little over-exaggerated and seems to be pulled out like a mantra whenver G.B. wants to intoduce one more level of erosion of individual rights, is very scary. What’s even more frightening is that many people seem to be “scared” into not objecting to policies that are just plain wrong.

  5. Tim Kane
    February 3rd, 2006 at 11:10 | #5

    YKW:

    If thats what they are doing all they need to do is approach congress and ask them to modify the law. If congress refuses take it to the people and tell them you need it or else you can’t protect them.

    On the other hand, if they are using the algorythmic approach to data mining as a pretext to shed accountability for spying on people that are legitimatly appossed to them then you have a problem.

    Who you gonna trust. The guy that says we don’t do torture, in the face of photos that say we do? The guy that lied to congress on the cost of the prescription drug benefit program? The guy that lied us into an unnecessary war and strategic quagmire that is doing to us what Afghansitan did to the soviets? The guy that has taken a hatchet to any person who has challenged his innept policies?

    Egads, This man needs to be kept on a short leash.

  6. Anonymous
    February 6th, 2006 at 15:09 | #6

    inlandchi, I would have to take issue with your failure to see much difference these days between America and some previous totalitarian states like Nazi-controlled Germany or the former USSR. We all know what the Nazi’s did, how many millions they killed in the name of ethnic cleansing. And we all know what Stalin did to 20 million of his own people – mass murder. I think people lose sight of the fact that while things have certainly changed in recent years, as they have throughout time, they are nowhere near the days of Stalin or Hitler. It is not only incorrect, but a completely inappropriate comparison. I haven’t seen those opposed to Bush shot in the streets and buried in mass graves. Quite to the contrary, they are speaking freely and publishing their opinions in nationally syndicated newspapers, etc.

    Any small step away from the freedoms we currently have can hold the possibility of further incursions on our freedoms. At the same time, every small step we take to harm our ability to counteract terrorism holds the possibility of mass casualties. A balance has to be struck, with our civil liberties kept at the forefront of importance.

    It is true that most people don’t mind the wire-tapping because it probably doesn’t directly affect them, and they doubt it will go further than that. At the same time, it is all too easy to say there is an over-exagerated, supposed terrorist threat. And much like the wire tapping, it doesn’t affect you directly until you or someone you know is caught up in an attack. We have had attacks directly against American interests by Islamic fundamentalists since Carter’s administration. To suggest it is a supposed, exagerated problem isn’t being honest with regard to factual history. There are those who will argue the fundamentalists are justified in their attacks against American interests, but that is beyond the scope of my response.

    At the end of the day the wire-tapping I have heard referenced in the media dealt with calls between Americans in the US, and suspected or known terrorists overseas. As well as suspected terrorists contacting each other within the continental US. You have no expectation of a Bill of Rights if you are not an American, or if you are a citizen travelling outside the US. Why would international calls, mail, etc. be any different. Do you doubt the government in a foreign country would listen to your calls or open packages you are sending overseas if they suspected you were committing a crime? We are esentially listening to overseas terrorists communicating with Americans. I have not heard that they are tapping phone calls between Americans or American businesses within the continental US borders.

Comments are closed.