New at Reason
Matt Welch wants to know if soi-disant libertarians with a crush on the Bush administration will at least condemn some hypothetical abuses of power before the White House tries to justify them.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
-
I support the invasion of Iraq because it makes people there more free and because a democratic middle east is arguably within the strategic objectives of the U.S. The government is going to steal and waste my money no matter what - at least this way SOMEBODY is getting some additional liberty out of it.
I disagree with every action the Bush admistration has taken, especially regarding the war on terror but really overall, between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
Therefore, I answered along with Matt, "no" on almost all of the questions but still support the war.
I'm not sure where that puts me on the divide he describes. -
Sounds like I'm about where Sean is.
Homeland security - a joke, almost without exception.
Domestic policy - repellent, with the exception of his tax cut 5 years ago.
The war in the Mideast - going reasonably well by historical standards, and probably going into Afghanistan and Iraq was the best of a bad lot of options, given what we thought we knew, what the trends were, and what our changed view of the risk posed by the region after 9/11. -
American citizens have already been waterboarded.
-
Julian's been reading Judge Kane's letter to the editor in this month's print issue.
-
OK Matt, if you're seriously looking for answers to your questions, here ya go.
1) Yes. I'll qualify it by adding that I'm assuming there must be some probable cause for the NSA to decide to monitor calls. I know the counter arguments to this, too, and I've read many good ones here on H&R. However, Occam's Razor is telling me that even the NSA doesn't have the time or manpower to spy on people for no discernable reason.
2) NO. The line you inquired about is right between 1 and 2.
3) No.
4) Yes. Journalists and other citizens should not be immune to investigation for treason or any other crimes. Assuming of course, that the answer to 2 is NO.
5) No.
6) I'm not sure what the implications of "all the tools" would be, so I have no opinion.
7) No.
8) Absolutely not.
9) NO way.
10) Not sure here either. I'd be willing to consider it, though. -
#9 Yes then no (Yes to National ID cards, No to be required to show them)
Other than that I agree (except, and here is where I think your friends are going to go with it):
#3 - Suppose Water boarding saves us all from a ticking nuclear bomb!!!
#4 - Suppose a 'journalist' like CNN's Amanpour is in the employ of the Iranians, and using her friendship at Brown with JFK jr. got secret access via Sen. Ted Kennedy to nuclear weapons plans and then dutifully brought them to her mullah masters! Welch thinks she should be immune from prosecution - he does not take terrorism or national defense seriously!!!
Etc., etc. This appears to be an earnest effort to get real debate, but the conservatarians that your questions apply to will not be lulled into serious debate. They are the worst kind of propagandists, and should be shunned in polite society. -
"They are the worst kind of propagandists, and should be shunned in polite society."
Do you or do you not want debate? -
I see linguist has already used my parody tactic on #4. Now, linguist, were you being sly and irreverent, or was that a serious response to #4.
your answer to #1 is just ridiculous. According to you, GWB should be allowed to secretly wiretap anyone with probable cause. Probable cause being completely decided by GWB. i.e., under your scenario if GWB doesn't like the way Matt Welch criticizes his governemtn, he can order a wiretap on the grounds of national security, with GWB being the final arbiter of whether that is a valid claim or not. -
I answered "No" to every question except #5 (CIA assassination), to which I answered, "Unsure"...
-
OK, to break it down by question:
1) Hard to say - depends on what you mean by "domestic" and "judicial approval."
2) No.
3) No.
4) I can't think of any journalists who I think are guilty of treason, but they shouldn't be exempted from the law either.
5) Maybe.
6) Sure. A cop is a cop. Why let the DEA do something that we don't allow the FBI to do? The real question is what tools shouuld all the cops be allowed to have.
7) Not without a conviction.
8) No.
9) No.
10) No. We overclassify stuff as it is. -
MarkP,
I am confused by your question. They should be shunned because they are not interested in debate. For example, they will have no interest in taking Mr. Welch's questions seriously, and try to distort the plain meaning of the questions: see my mock answer to #4 for an example. -
1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?
Yes, if those phone calls involve communications between international terror cells or foreign powers. U.S. soil should not be area of free operation for Al-Quada.
2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell?
Believed to be ought not to be good enough. There should be judicial oversight in the form of military tribunals to determine if they are in fact memebers of a terrorist cell. If they are, they are enemy combatants and can be held indefinitely.
3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?
This is a red hearing question. Is waterboarding torture? That is the real issue of this question. If it is not, then the answer is yes, assuming that the American is a member of a terrorist cell. If it is torture, then it should be done to anyone terrorist of not.
4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?
This is a pretty stupid and meaningless question. I don't know of any treasonous journalists. Treason like all crimes depends on the circumstances. Without context, the question is unanswerable.
5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?
If those people are members or beleived to be members of a terrorist group operating against the U.S., absolutely.
6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?
Again, another meaningless and stupid question. Even the biggest dove treats terrorism as a crime. If it is a crime, why wouldn't police have all options available to them in investigating terror cases as they do in other crimes?
7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?
Considering that they do it in drug cases, why not terror cases? I suppose freezing assets would count as seizure. However, it is difficult to stop terror cells unless you shut off their money. Again, if its good enough for drug enforcement and the dark night of facism hasn't decended on America, why not terror?
8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?
Absolutely not.
9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?
No. It would take up too many resources and would be too easy to fake and of no real value in stopping terrorism. One of those feel good but useless measures.
10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?
No. We classify too much junk now. Classifying more would be a waste of time. -
Coach,
As I noted in my response, there are plenty of counter-arguments to my opinion, and yours is one. However, I'm looking at what's LIKELY to happen rather than what COULD happen. Shoot it down by accusing me of being a "if you haven't done anything wrong you don't need to worry" person if you like, but it's not going to change my view.
As for #4, the question as proposed isn't entirely fair. Do I think journalists should be investigated for sedition if they cover a story the admin doesn't like? Of course not. However, just like any other citizen, if there's evidence that they're knowingly aiding hostile countries/persons, they can't be considered "untouchable". Else why would terrorists not intentionally try to infiltrate that protected class? -
However, Occam's Razor is telling me that even the NSA doesn't have the time or manpower to spy on people for no discernable reason.
What does that guess have to do with Occam's Razor? -
KipEsquire,
I am actually in favor of targeted assasinations ( I would have preferred the assasination of Sadaam Hussein to the current war), but I think in order to do it you should first get a formal declaration of war (further more, I think a policy like this would require some type of formal support by a consortium of decent interantional governments, with us pretty much defining what we take to be decent.) -
To clarify -- My journalist/treason question wasn't weather they should be *exempt* from whatever laws exist, but whether you can think of some recent-ish cases in which a treason investigation would have been justified.
-
What does that guess have to do with Occam's Razor?
"Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler. "
Is it simpler to believe that the evil Republican administration intends to use the NSA to spy on and imprison innocent US citizens who have nothing to do with terrorism,
OR
Is the simpler explanation that the NSA will expend money and time investigating what they are charged with investigating?
I suppose the "simpler" answer depends on how much tin foil you use in your headgear. -
Coach,
If you are convinced that they don't want debate, and that they'll twist senarios to the point of absurdity, debate will be impossible.
Conservatives see the world in a manner different from libertarians. The things that seem absurd to you seem realistic to them; likewise some things that seem realistic to you may sound absurd to them. It is our differing worldviews that give rise to our disagreements in opinion; if you want to have reasonable diaglogue you have to make an effort to understand what the other person is saying, no matter how absurd it may sound. -
How about this as a quiz question:
I am willing to sacrifice the lives of ___ innocent Iraqis* to achieve my goal of reducing my chance of dying by an Islamist terrorist attack from 1 in ___ to 1 in ___.
My answers from the reality based world are 0, 1 trillion, 1 trillion.
Now, if we're talking hypotheticals, where you're imagining a tactic that will actually reduce terrorism instead of feeding it, I'd answer 1, something very close to 1 (certainly no higher than 10), something relatively high, but in this scenario, this number is somewhat irrelevant, as long as the first two numbers are true.
To me, any other answer is just another way of saying "I'm happy to make you pay for my comfort."
*This is a valid question, as no sane person, and certainly noone with a lick of military knowledge, would believe that invading another country would result in zero "collateral damage". You know you will kill innocents, whether you intend it or not - just like driving your car at 100 miles an hour across a crowded playground you know you will kill or main some children, whether you intend it or not, and that's why knowingly killing someone is still classified as murder. -
Matt,
I can't think of any recent cases where journalists should be investigated for treason. The mere leaking of information is not alone treason in most cases. -
Re #4, with Matt's explanation, I change my answer to No.
-
If you are going to use Occam's Razor, there is a simpler explaination - Power Corrupts. Unchecked power corrupts even quicker.
Judicial oversight would help to keep such a thing in check. But I suppose that is "tinfoil hat" talk. -
I consider myself a libertarian and answered no to every question. I was opposed (marginally at first and moreso now) to the invasion of Iraq, though not the strike against the Taliban.
-
Is it simpler to believe that the evil Republican administration intends to use the NSA to spy on and imprison innocent US citizens who have nothing to do with terrorism,
OR
Is the simpler explanation that the NSA will expend money and time investigating what they are charged with investigating?
Aside from the false dichotomy being offered here, there's a little bit of well-poisoning going on with that first one, and a little bit of misdirection going on with the second. If the President assigns the NSA to monitor, say, anti-war groups in the US, then that's exactly what it's going to do. -
I'm with Sean Dougherty in not seeing support for the invasion of Iraq as necessarily going hand in hand with being weak on civil liberties. Regarding the quiz, I largely answered "no", but with some questions and qualifiers:
1) No, though I might accept fairly expansive "approval", like authorization to tap a public phone in a building where Suspect X is known to stay periodically.
2) No, though I'm not sure I like the idea of American citizenship automatically conferring full constitutional privileges on an individual in the case of, say, a 25 year old individual who hasn't lived in the US since age 2 who is captured fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. I don't know what the alternative would be, though.
3) No
4) I don't know of any, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility. No on sedition laws, but I wouldn't rule out that there might be situations where speech alone could cross the line into treason or incitement of violence.
5) I don't think it can be ruled out. We're not at war with Pakistan, but if a Navy SEAL sniper spotted bin Ladin hanging around a cave mouth I'd want him to shoot.
6) I think that plenty of accepted law enforcement practices are questionable from a civil liberties standpoint, but I'm not sure I get what Julian is objecting to here. As R.C. Dean and others have noted, why should anti-terrorism cops have _less_ authority and fewer options than regular cops?
7) No. I think "in rem" proceedings are crap in just about every context.
8) Not generally, though I wouldn't rule it out as a temporary measure in a disaster situation.
9) No.
10) Probably not. I think a lot of material is classified unnecessarily, and some of the secrecy provisions of the PATRIOT act strike me as absurd, but I accept the idea of erring on the side of secrecy in an uncertain situation. -
Let's at least phrase the question properly. Americans are not the only people who have been killed by terrorists.
I am willing to sacrifice the lives of ___ innocent people in the world to achieve my goal of reducing the chance that ___ innocent people will not be killed by Islamist terrorist attack from 1 in ___ to 1 in ___.
A lot depends on whether the number in the first blank is smaller than the number in the second, and whether the chances can actually be reduced. I think this is closer to how "conservatarians", or whatever, are approaching the issue. -
"I am willing to sacrifice the lives of ___ innocent Iraqis* to achieve my goal of reducing my chance of dying by an Islamist terrorist attack from 1 in ___ to 1 in ___."
Is your implication that the Iraqis would prefer the situation prior to the war? -
my answers, in the interest of full disclosure:
no, to all but 5&6.
5 is a big maybe, in that I can imagine a scenario where OBL is found in Pakistan, planning a strike against us, and the Pakistanis refuse or are unable to control him. If we have the chance to merely assassinate him, with the minimum of collateral damage associated with that course of action, I think it would be penny wise but pound foolish to rule it out in favor of another full scale "regime change" operation. Outside of that relatively unlikely scenario though, the answer is no.
6, is a yes, but answer. Yes, but then I think the domestic cops have more power than they should, so if you're assuming the current powers of cops, as opposed to the actual Constitutional powers, then no. But if you're talking about the limited Constitutional powers, then yes, they certainly shouldn't be more restricted than the domestic cops. -
As a not-libertarian, I think you guys are right to complain about someone like me complaining about your libertarian bona fides, but...
How is it possible to claim to being a libertarian while at the same time that giving unlimited control to wiretap is unlikely to be abused despite taking away all checks and balances, because:
"even the NSA doesn't have the time or manpower to spy on people for no discernable reason."
Doesn't basic public choice theory dictate that a discernable reason is not necessarily a justifiable reason?
What is frustrating to a lot of us watching the disaster that is the Bush presidency, is that a lot of people that we considered to most likely be principled* seemed to abandon those principles in a jingoistic cult of personality worshipping frenzy after 9-11.
*linguist, let me state for the record, that although I quote you, this line is not intended to be directed at you, although I am sure it does not. I simply do not know enough about your history of posts to say that, and I wouldn't base a comment like that on a single quickly filled out blog comment. I am thinking more of someone like Glenn Reynolds, champion of the frightened bed wetting school of please do whatever it takes to protect me from the scary terrorists, daddy Bush. -
If the President assigns the NSA to monitor, say, anti-war groups in the US, then that's exactly what it's going to do.
The Pentagon, for one, is already monitoring anti-war groups in the US:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/
Do a Google search on "CIFA" and "Talon" for more fun. -
Let's at least phrase the question properly. Americans are not the only people who have been killed by terrorists.
They're the only ones our military and our government are charged with protecting. You want to protect the rest of the world from terrorists? Build an army. I'll send $500. -
Matt,
It looks like several of us in the Peanut Gallery could use some clarification on #6. I, too, struggle to see what the treason journalist question is getting at. Is it possible for a journalist to commit treason? Sure. If this is an unserious reading of the question, what does the question actually mean?
I like the thrust of the post, though. It is useful to set boundaries. The previous round of "What isn't commerce?" was similarly useful.
On the flip side, I'll ask:
1) Should an executive have ANY powers under wartime that he doesn't have during peace?
2) Is the lack of a congressional declaration of war a problem here, or does congressional approval not help the legitimacy of any of these actions. I'm thinking here is congress's explicit power to suspend habeus corpus.
3) Do the costs of actions really not matter at all so long as the actions are grounded in a principle? The concern here is that evidence of a given terrorist attack is poor. There is no means to effectively persue a law enforcement case. If that attack is sufficiently large and the attacker remains undeterred, is there any point when the cost becomes high enough to justify extraordinary action? You were seeking to categorically eliminate the possiblity of assassination. Is that really the case if we allow costs of inaction to run unbounded? -
That's what I thought, Matt. So it's hardly a stretch to imagine that the NSA might be doing so as well.
Now, MarkP is about to call someone "objectively pro-Saddam" or somesuch, I think. Hey, Mark, when are you planning to visit the paradise that is Baghdad? -
However, Occam's Razor is telling me that even the NSA doesn't have the time or manpower to spy on people for no discernable reason.
Discernable reasons, assuming NSA members are human beings and thus prone to have human weaknesses:
That journalist has been spending too much time criticizing the government. Let's tap his phone.
The cops assure me he's committing a crime, even though they have no evidence. Let me help them get some.
He converted to Islam? Why? That makes no sense. Better check him out.
He's been attending a lot of anti-government protests lately. Hell, if J. Edgar Hoover could tap Martin Luther King, then I can surely tap this guy.
I can't believe that bitch turned me down when I asked her out on a date. Who's she fucking, then? I know how I can find out! -
Judicial oversight would help to keep such a thing in check.
Agreed! That wasn't part of the question, though. I tried to clarify and qualify my response as much as possible, but I knew I'd be called on the carpet regardless.
Aside from the false dichotomy being offered here, there's a little bit of well-poisoning going on with that first one, and a little bit of misdirection going on with the second.
Also true.
But why, exactly, do you think the President would assign the NSA to monitor anti-war groups? Isn't that pretty similar to what I gave as the "less simple" explanation? Doesn't that contain one of the following underlying assumptions?
1. The president believes that anti-war groups in the U.S. are aiding terrorists
2. Anti-war groups in the U.S. actually are aiding terrorists
3. The president and co. are more interested in persecuting anti-war protesters than they are in going after real terrorists. -
2) Is the lack of a congressional declaration of war a problem here, or does congressional approval not help the legitimacy of any of these actions. I'm thinking here is congress's explicit power to suspend habeus corpus.
Doesn't the suspension of habeus corpus also require that the courts are shut down? Also, shouldn't such a suspension actually be declared, rather than simply done in secret? -
"Is your implication that the Iraqis would prefer the situation prior to the war?"
That is irrelevant to the question. Would drug addicts prefer to be addicts? Do poor people prefer to be poor? All irelevant. The question stands as it is, no implication necessary.
"Let's at least phrase the question properly. Americans are not the only people who have been killed by terrorists."
Never said they were. However, at the same time, our federal government, as constrained by the Constitution, has no duty to protect people other than its citizens. At what point does spending my money to protect citizens of other countries become different from spending my money to support a welfare mom in this country? Either they're both valid exercises of federal power, or neither are, imho. So I'll stick with my formulation, unless you want to debate whether the UN should take a certain action... -
Agreed! That wasn't part of the question, though.
This may be a nitpick, but that was exactly the question:
1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval? -
Were any attempts every made by us to assassinate Saddam? And if not, why not? An assassination along with perhaps bombing into oblivion the Iraqi military seems to have been a reasonable thing to do if we could line someone up to assume power right away. Also, a lot of bribes could be used to grease the entire process.
-
But rather, I'm interested in breaking the cycle for a moment, stepping back, and asking the Glenn Reynoldses and Thomas Sowells of the world one question: How far is too far in the War on Terror?
Odd that he links to Reynolds saying he likes the McCain anti-torture bill and approves of it passing. (Well, he admits he worries it might disallow certain non-torturous interrogations and "leave gray areas that will permit conduct that's tantamount to torture". Such an egg-breaking omelette-maker thing to say...) -
But why, exactly, do you think the President would assign the NSA to monitor anti-war groups?
Because if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists.
If the President is convinced that he is doing Good (on explicit orders from God Almighty, no less), then anyone who opposes him is opposed to Good as well as the Will of God. -
"Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler."
I suspected this was your mistake; that's not Occam's Razor. The idea is that you stick to established facts to make predictions, rather than inventing theories not based on evidence. Unless you take it as an "established fact" that the NSA is immune from corruption (not to mention inefficiency), it doesn't apply here. The Razor does not allow you to prove your point by repeating it. -
"I am willing to sacrifice the lives of ___ innocent Iraqis* to achieve my goal of reducing my chance of dying by an Islamist terrorist attack from 1 in ___ to 1 in ___."
Every hostage taker wins every time, making hostage taking the most profitable business in the world. Every jackass who hides in a crowd is untouchable. He can gas subway stations. He can fly planes into buildings. On the grounds of the above statement, no action can ever be taken against him or his friends. In an iterative game where the terrorist never bears a cost, the numbers in the last two blanks start escalating quickly.
"I am willing to put _____ innocent people in jail to reduce the probability of my spouse from being kidnapped from ____ to _____."
The reality based answer is that if you put a 0 in the first box, you are eliminating all possiblity of enforcement of the rule of law. -
MarkP,
It is my opinion that the people I am referring to are not interested in legitimate debate and will do their best to avoid the obvious and plain meaning of debates. In my opinion, post 9/11 has seen a disturbing increase in this trend, especially of Bush supporters, but not limited to them.
wrt,Is your implication that the Iraqis would prefer the situation prior to the war?
It seems to me ridiculously obvious that there are many many people who think they are better off and many, many that think they are worse off, and many more than otherwise (less obvious, but true nonetheless!) cannot offer any opinion because they are dead. -
If that attack is sufficiently large and the attacker remains undeterred, is there any point when the cost becomes high enough to justify extraordinary action? You were seeking to categorically eliminate the possiblity of assassination.
I should introduce everyone to my pet weasel -- that question said "should the CIA be able to legally assassinate." Like torture, I would like that to be illegal (which in fact it is, unless I'm dumber than I look); but also like torture, should that mythical perfect ticking-timb-bomb scenario crop up, or if Osama's in a cafe next to the CIA dude, I would expect that our representative would break the law, and be pardoned (to great applause).
Question 6 is vague for a very good reason -- I didn't have enough time! Basically, I recall that the PATRIOT Act was justified largely on the grounds that we were giving anti-terror cops the same tools available to those fighting the Mafia, or the War on Drugs (laws which, if my bad memory further serves, were justifed in *their* day as being necessary exceptions to a good rule). On the face of it, of *course* you'd want to be able to fight terror with as many tools as fighting any other crime; in practice, that would mean increasing police power across the board in what I would think would be unhealthy ways. For instance the question about seizing & selling property -- in L.A., they can do that if you're caught street-racing.... -
Amen, Jason.
Let us take a proper game-theory based approached to this argument instead of relying purely on rhetoric. -
correction: the numbers in the last two blanks don't escalate, the probablilites they refer to do.
-
11) If you love George Bush so much, why don't you marry him?
-
Odd that he links to Reynolds saying he likes the McCain anti-torture bill and approves of it passing.
Not odd at all -- Glenn & Andrew Sullivan had a drawn-out blog-slap about the torture stuff, during which Glenn managed to say close to nothing about his actual stand on torture, or the McCain bill. My link wasn't intended to be some kind of gotcha, but rather a reminder that one of the most influential pro-war libertarianish voices out there has spent more time debating the debate than staking out his positions. I am genuinely curious to know how Glenn would answer these questions, which is why I singled him out by name. -
I answer NO to all Q's. Indeed I would move the line much further back, as in "no government agency should ever conduct a domestic wiretap without a warrant (and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause and supported by oath and affirmation). Reading John at 2:19 and some others here has made me physically nauseous. I guess when looking for the line pro-Bushies wouldn't cross Julian didn't draw one far enough.
Anyone who answered anything other than an unqualified NO to more than half of Julian's list, how do you feel about the following?
1. If a person dies in custody should an investigation as to the cause of the death be permitted?
2. If it is determined that the detainee died of injuries sustained while in custody, should an investigation as to the circumstances of his death be permitted?
3. If it is determined that he died during interrogation, should his interrogators be charged and made to stand trial?
4. If at trial his interrogators claim they were "just following orders", should there be an investigation as to whether such orders were in fact issued?
5. If evidence that interrogation techniques that could foreseeabley result in death were sanctioned as a matter of administration policy is uncovered, should the president and members of his cabinet be criminally charged?
6. Does the fact that the detainee was originally taken into custody solely on the word of his neighbor that he was a terrorist change any of the above? (what if his neighbor is now banging his wife planting in his fields?) -
"Every hostage taker wins every time, making hostage taking the most profitable business in the world."
Nope. That's your assertion, and not reality. If a person takes a hostage, he still needs to eat. He still needs to sleep. He still needs many other things. I propose no affirmative duty to give him what he demands - if he kills his hostage, it's his responsibility, not mine. And he will be punished for it, because eventually, he won't have hostage.
Save your sci-fi scenarios for fever dreams.
" On the grounds of the above statement, no action can ever be taken against him or his friends. In an iterative game where the terrorist never bears a cost, the numbers in the last two blanks start escalating quickly"
As I showed above this is nothing more than fever dreams imagined to support a pre-existing prejudice.
"The reality based answer is that if you put a 0 in the first box, you are eliminating all possiblity of enforcement of the rule of law. "
First of all, putting someone in jail =/= killing them. You can free and compensate a wrongly jailed person. Until we inhabit your sci-fi universe, however, we'll be stuck with a wrongfully killed person.
Even then, you can make the argument that in all but cases of physical violence, confinement is not a very libertarian solution. Restitution to the victim is. In cases of an unrepentant physically violent person, obviously, some version sequestration is necessary. But this definition is limited such that it is highly unlikely that you will ever sequester an innocent if this is the standard. -
1) ..monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?
No. If there's not enough evidence to convince a third party there's not enough evidence. Period.
2)...hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely..
No. Unless the the holder is accountable to someone this is a threat to ME. And YOU. And all of us. This violates our security and safety more than the miniscule threat of actually being injured in another terrorist attack. Without oversight the opportunity for abuse far outweighs any possible benefit.
3) ... waterboarding an American citizen?
Only the ticking atom bomb scenario, and the torturer should be held accountable afterwards. Maybe it should even be done publicly, like happens at executions--that would certainly put some constraints on abuse.
4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?
Only if they commit treason. Reporting government misbehavior isn't treason.
5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?
See answer to 3.
6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?
Sure. A cop's a cop.
7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?
No. Suspicion is not conviction.
8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?
Isn't there a law against this?
9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?
National ID cards are security risks far more dangerous than any problem they are designed to solve. People who actually work in security-related fields (including myself) oppose national ID cards because they constitute 'single points of failure' and thus are detrimental to good security.
10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?
No. Most currently classified documents are not security risks in the first place, and, again, the risks of classifying outweigh the benefits. -
But why, exactly, do you think the President would assign the NSA to monitor anti-war groups?
I guess for the same reason he'd have the FBI, DoD and others investigate vegans, Quakers and the ACLU. Sussing out that reason is left as an exercise for the reader. -
Occam's Razor:
Numquam ponendo est pluritas sine necessitate. [Latin]
which translates to:
Multiples should never be used if not necessary.
or
"Shave off" (omit) unnecessary entities in explanations.
But a more commonly used translation is:
Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler. (from Wikipedia)
Also, zach, I think you and I have different ideas of "evidence". You see, I don't feel it's necessary for me to have proof of a LACK of corruption in the NSA, as you seem to require. I'll stick with what seems to be the simplest explanation, and change it as soon as I have evidence that contradicts it. -
I'm not sure if I find Andrew Sullivan attractive because I have some weird fetish for bald men in their 40s or because I just like his writing so much.
-
"I should introduce everyone to my pet weasel -- that question said "should the CIA be able to legally assassinate." Like torture, I would like that to be illegal (which in fact it is, unless I'm dumber than I look); but also like torture, should that mythical perfect ticking-timb-bomb scenario crop up, or if Osama's in a cafe next to the CIA dude, I would expect that our representative would break the law, and be pardoned (to great applause)."
I agree with this completely. You are making an argument about procedure and oversight, which is different from the absolutist moral argument quasibill is making. I find the latter unconvincing. -
I don't feel it's necessary for me to have proof of a LACK of corruption in the NSA, as you seem to require. I'll stick with what seems to be the simplest explanation, and change it as soon as I have evidence that contradicts it.
But if there is no oversight or accountability or transparency of the NSA, then even if they are being corrupt where do you expect such evidence to come from? -
You see, I don't feel it's necessary for me to have proof of a LACK of corruption in the NSA, as you seem to require. I'll stick with what seems to be the simplest explanation, and change it as soon as I have evidence that contradicts it.
It is not necessary to prove a lack of corruption. It is necessary to have judicial oversight to help prevent corruption. Otherwise all you can do is hope there never is any corruption. -
"And he will be punished for it, because eventually, he won't have hostage."
Way to miss the point. How many people fitting the role of hostage (i.e. the shield that protects the terrorist from legitimate response) exist in Iraq? Is it one guy? Will AQ 'run out' of shields some day? -
Most I could answer with a fairly certain "no".
3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?
Well...maybe. Not a situation like anything we're facing, and not something that should be permitted. I think in a true "ticking-bomb scenario" where a confirmed member of a terrorist group or other enemy agent had knowledge of a major (9/11-scale or higher) attack, some guy unilaterally deciding to do something he knows highly illegal might be justified. No matter the result, he and anyone who helped should be fired or discharged, then prosecuted. Even if the torture (and I do consider waterboarding torture, if a less brutal than other methods) results in thousands or more lives saved, he should face some punishment for it.
5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?
Depends on who and why. I distrust doing so for fighting terrorism; I'd prefer a law-enforcement approach (ie, trying to capture and try these people) in this case. -
1) Yes. I'll qualify it by adding that I'm assuming there must be some probable cause for the NSA to decide to monitor calls. I know the counter arguments to this, too, and I've read many good ones here on H&R. However, Occam's Razor is telling me that even the NSA doesn't have the time or manpower to spy on people for no discernable reason.
Linguist, having probable cause is the standard for obtaining judicial approval. If they *had* probable cause in the first place, then a judge or magistrate would give them their their warrants to go ahead and tap.
The whole notion of needing *warrantless* (ie -- no judicial approval) wiretaps is because they want to wiretap people who they don't have probable cause of suspecting of being involved in a crime.
If that makes you wonder why, then, they are even bothering to wiretap them, then you get exactly what the problem is. YES, that is what they are asking. They want to wiretap people who they have no probable cause to suspect are involved with crime. But we should be scared of them anyway because somebody said they're terrorists... they just can't come up with even the miserable pittance of evidence required to get the green light from a court to wiretap. -
"Odd that he links to Reynolds saying he likes the McCain anti-torture bill and approves of it passing."
Not odd at all -- Glenn & Andrew Sullivan had a drawn-out blog-slap about the torture stuff, during which Glenn managed to say close to nothing about his actual stand on torture, or the McCain bill.
Just searching for "torture" on his site finds him saying "I'm against torture". The slap-fight references appear to be about an argument over whether Sullivan was equating some non-torturous things with torture (and the general Reynold/Sullivan bad blood).
[Reynolds] has spent more time debating the debate than staking out his positions.
I see this by a lot of people in pretty much every debate I see, but hey. I'm just still puzzling over the whole "prominent libertarian bloggers say they're OK with NSA spying, etc" and dropping unsuccessful requests for examples everywhere it comes up, so I may be sensitive to this sort of argument. -
Linguist, the "more commonly used" definition you refer to is only valid when it is not used to contradict the actual interpretation to which you refer, "Multiples should never be used if not necessary." You're using a simplification of the idea to ignore the actual point of the idea. As you yourself stated, when you stick to only that defintion, everything depends on what to you seems more or less simple.
I don't require evidence that they lack corruption any more than I require evidence that they are corrupt. The fact remains that with increased power comes increased capacity, and thus, risk, for corruption (or simply error). The question is whether or not that risk is worth it.
Now, believe it or not, I have been doing something I'm being paid no to do this whole time, and I need to work. Maybe someone else will continue my point for me. -
When Lord Acton wrote " Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." He was not just offering up a quote for the peanut gallery. He was speaking to an historical observation.
We have a referent in recent history in the individual of Hoover. At a time of unprecedented expansion of "organized crime", specifically into union organization, he turned his attention, resources and much of his personal concern over to nearly obsessive observation of such people as Dr. King Jr, and rock stars. Of course, one can understand Hoovers tolerance for "organized crime", after all, unlike trade unionists, you KNOW they are capitalists. I too often defend the black market, it was useful in the old soviet union in almost the exact same way it is useful here (albeit with certain risks)...but still...it was a ridiculous trade off. And quite often Hoovers men looked and acted more like KGB operatives than criminal investigators. An awful lot of thought crime was investigated.
And this becomes the base problem. If it is naturally true that freedom is best, and that losing your freedom is worst. How much more so at times of crisis?
Why is President Bush, or any who may follow him, so superior to history? That unchecked, he will do what no other in history has done and resist the urge to dictate? The optimism inherent in the philosophy that Bush is "the one" scares me.
Osama attacks, telling us he's after our freedom. We counter by saying...golly gee Osama, thanks for the tip, lets shed that nasty pillar of freedom right now. After all....Lord Acton was wrong. Right?
Independent worm said " 1) Yes. I'll qualify it by adding that I'm assuming there must be some probable cause for the NSA to decide to monitor calls. I know the counter arguments to this, too, and I've read many good ones here on H&R. However, Occam's Razor is telling me that even the NSA doesn't have the time or manpower to spy on people for no discernable reason."
I guess that's the telling point. I would suggest that all human history indicates that is not true. Obviously I have a different historical view than does iw. I believe that internal political threats would become to be seen equivalent to external physical threats. That this is an inevitable lesson of the history of governance.
A few examples came from MSNBC recently, if I recall the Pentagon had assessed a group of anti-war quakers from Wisconsin, and a lesbian "kiss-in" against the war as "threats". -
Linguist, having probable cause is the standard for obtaining judicial approval.
Yes, I meant probable cause in the informal sense, not the legal sense. If I had meant it in the legal sense, what I said wouldn't make any sense, would it?! :-) "Cause for suspicion" would have been more accurate, though it doesn't help this debate as there's no good line in the sand. Just as someone else pointed out, the NSA are human beings, making them liable to corruption, but also capable of thinking independently and occasionally making right decisions.
As far as spying goes, I am always going to fall on the side of "more information is best". And if it's impossible to get without a warrant, I'm willing to make exceptions. I recommend "The Terrorist Hunter" for an eye-opening view into how the FBI and CIA are constrained on this matter. -
I have no doubt that I would be called a "Conservatarian" (I've been called worse in other threads)
1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval? Yes - if it is directly related to the gathering of intelligence about our enemies.
2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell? Yes- But only if they can convince at minimum a military tribunal.
3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen? I waterboarding torture? Is the American Citizen a proven member of a terrorist organization?
4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced? There are already laws about revealing and disseminating classified information. If they apply, they should be applied to journalists just as they would be to anyone else.
5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war? If the CIA spots Zarquawi having coffee on the Champs de lise and doesn't take him out I would be unhappy.
6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases? I fail to see any reason why we would not want anti-terrorism cops to have the same tools we use for going after criminals. Unless we want to have a harder time catching terrorists.
7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it? No.
8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime? As a regular function absolutely not. In terms of sending in the National Guard to restore in a crisis i.e. Katrina - yes.
9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand? Your Papers Please - No Thank You
10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public? There a certain things that it would probably beneficial to keep from the eyes of the other side during a war. That said I don't think the NSA leak was a terrible blow. I would assume that the terrorist assume we are trying to intercept their communications. I can't imagine the news that we are was a surprise to many. -
Just as someone else pointed out, the NSA are human beings, making them liable to corruption,
Then why do you think they should be exempt from systems designed to stop corruption? No oversight, no transparency, no accountAbility? -
I'm sure the NSA wouldn't spy on anybody that they didn't *think* was guilty (mostly), but I'm also pretty sure that they would spy on someone they think is guilty even though they have no real proof or reasonable cause of their guilt. That is the danger of an unhampered LEO: assume guilt, then do whatever is necessary to find proof of guilt.
-
I'd like to answer "no" to all of these, but the wording behind #4, #6 and #8 is vague and politician-like. So, based on that, I'll answer "no" to 1-3,5,7,9,10 and reserve the right to answer 4,6,8 when they are more clearly drawn-out.
-
Then why do you think they should be exempt from systems designed to stop corruption? No oversight, no transparency, no accountAbility?
One reason is that I won't assume guilt (or harm) until I see some evidence of it. The main reason, however, comes down to my belief (and it is only a belief, some people here are convinced that I'm completely wrong about this and they may be right) that the risk is outweighed by the reward. -
Stephen Macklin: the National Guard is not the U.S. Military, who are subject to the posse comitatus rules against domestic operations. If I understand the question, it regards the post-Katrina initiatives to change the rules and allow the regular Army and Air Force to operate within the United States (the Navy and Marines are permitted to operate within the U.S.).
-
Johnny, that was supposed to be in italics. I was quoting linguist.
-
One reason is that I won't assume guilt (or harm) until I see some evidence of it.
But I asked you earlier on this thread: how do you expect to ever SEE any evidence, when they can keep everything they do a secret? -
The main reason, however, comes down to my belief (and it is only a belief, some people here are convinced that I'm completely wrong about this and they may be right) that the risk is outweighed by the reward.
Exactly. This is the fundamental question to be answered. My objection is that you're using the evidence "X is paid to do Y" as evidence that X is in fact doing Y and only Y, which doesn't follow. -
But why, exactly, do you think the President would assign the NSA to monitor anti-war groups?
Well, it seems that Bush critics are ending up on the "no fly list." -
"Way to miss the point. How many people fitting the role of hostage (i.e. the shield that protects the terrorist from legitimate response) exist in Iraq? Is it one guy? Will AQ 'run out' of shields some day?"
Nope, I hit it right on the head, you're just unable to accept it. And yes, they would, as long as their 'hostages' see that it is AQ killing them (which will be apparent) and not the U.S. In fact, the 'hostages' will be the ones who deal with the terrorist in this scenario - they're not going to willingly line up to be killed, and will, in fact, turn against the terrorist in any way possible.
It's the point that the war apologist continually fail to understand - it's very, very, hard to hold blameless the person who pulled the trigger that killed your loved one, even when you have logical reasons to do so. Hence the fact that collateral damage increases terrorism recruiting, despite the fact that many Iraqis logically know that the terrorists caused the situation.
Remove the logical excuse, and they have no reason NOT to blame the terrorist when their loved one is killed, and they will, quickly, as it will conform to their emotional response to the person who pulled the trigger. -
Edit: Whoops! Link didn't work:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/013272&pr...HE0BHNlYwN0bWE- -
I answered "no" to all of them, except for number 4 and 5.
Someone explained 4 quite well with Amanpour and Iran and treason.
With 5, imagine if some CIA folk spotted Bin Laden in Pakistan. I would be pissed if they didn't gun him down. The idea of declaring war on sovreign states doesn't make a whole bunch of sense, since it is usually just a faction in the state giving us guff (even if it is the ruling faction, ala Baathists).
Anyways, I answered more libertarian than not. I supported the war in Afghanistan (or rather, against al qaeda). I did not support invading Iraq, but as the phrase goes, we broke it, we buy it.
Sure, if we can do no good in Iraq, then we should 'cut and run', if you will. However, if us sticking around longer means the creation of a stable somewhat free republic why not stick around? Just because you opposed going doesn't mean you have to oppose staying.
And just because I support staying and afghanistan doesn't mean I support all the violations of Liberty by those in power.
I don't feel this makes me a conservatarian, just a libertarian who wants to see the same liberties we got here in Iraq now that we got the chance. -
Akira:
But why, exactly, do you think the President would assign the NSA to monitor anti-war groups?
Well, it seems that Bush critics are ending up on the "no fly list."
Why does the latter require the former? -
My objection is that you're using the evidence "X is paid to do Y" as evidence that X is in fact doing Y and only Y, which doesn't follow.
Not exactly. I'm assuming Y will do Y. I make no claims as to whether they will do more than Y. It seems there are others here who DO assume they will do more than Y, and I admit that possibility, but will not accomodate it until I see it.
And Jennifer,
While you have a point that "secret" operations will likely never provide the evidence of more than Y, I go back to my other reason: risk vs. reward.
Maybe I need to be educated on this point, but what we're really talking about is a violation of an assumed right to privacy, right? It's little more than eavesdropping. And, while rude, eavesdropping is a tried & true spy tactic. Until and unless the NSA causes some HARM by eavesdropping, I don't see the risk as being that big.
I also think that if there were harm being done, even without the knowledge of the people being spied upon, there would be whistleblowers. -
linguist wrote,
Yes, I meant probable cause in the informal sense, not the legal sense. If I had meant it in the legal sense, what I said wouldn't make any sense, would it?!
Well, in fact, it didn't. What you are essentially arguing then, is a lowering of the standard. From probable cause to "cause for suspicion".
I don't know how that's anything more than re-branding, a la "person of interest. It's devoid of any real meaning.
The founding fathers, and many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many courts and legislatures since, have considered the question of whether the 4th amendment coddles criminals too much by requiring some kind of "proof" they're up to no good before we throw 'em in the slammer. So far, it hasn't kept us from putting a higher percentage of our own citizens behind bars than any country on earth. Given that, I fail to see how the 4th amendment is slowing down law enforcement. It appears to be in very high gear.
We got 4 planes hijacked 4 years ago. Now the cockpits are sealed. Problem solved. Won't happen again. So why all this other stuff? -
eavesdropping is a tried & true spy tactic. Until and unless the NSA causes some HARM by eavesdropping, I don't see the risk as being that big.
People like me think that losing the right to keep your private communications secret from the government (unless they have damn good reason to suspect you of a crime) is in itself a major harm. -
We got 4 planes hijacked 4 years ago. Now the cockpits are sealed. Problem solved. Won't happen again. So why all this other stuff?
Sealing the cockpit doors was definitely a good thing to do. To assume that hijacking planes is the only way terrorists could attack would be a mistake. That's why all the other stuff. -
Jennifer,
You assume that the government has some reason to want to listen in to you private communications absent a damn good reason to suspect you of a crime?
What reason would that be?
I can't imagine any reason they would want to waste even a minute portion of their resources listening in to my life. -
People like me think that losing the right to keep your private communications secret from the government (unless they have damn good reason to suspect you of a crime) is in itself a major harm.
A respectable perspective. It's just not as important to me.
LOL-no wonder the NSA didn't hire me!
Well, it's been nice chatting folks...time for me to get some work done, too. -
You assume that the government has some reason to want to listen in to you private communications absent a damn good reason to suspect you of a crime? What reason would that be?
Check out my post at 2:42. -
You assume that the government has some reason to want to listen in to you private communications absent a damn good reason to suspect you of a crime?
Most Americans have committed a crime of some sort at one point in their lives, regardless of the nature or extent of the crime. Some very good people commit crime that doesn't affect anyone on a regular basis. The executive branch has no business listening to anyone they please without prior consent from the judicial. -
Sealing the cockpit doors was definitely a good thing to do. To assume that hijacking planes is the only way terrorists could attack would be a mistake. That's why all the other stuff.
Yeah, but it's not like they STARTED trying on 9.11. The US has been fending off occasional terrorist threats forever. I didn't hear people shrieking "Get rid of the 4th amendment before we all die!!!!!!" after the OKC bombing. We just tightened up on the fertilizer sales a little bit and voila, no more truck bombs. -
And if it's impossible to get without a warrant, I'm willing to make exceptions.
The point with this recent kerfuffle is that not only was it not impossible to get warrants for the things Bush has apparently been doing, but the body responsible for issuing them was little more than a rubber stamp, and could furthermore issue them retroactively, within 72 hours. So why go out of your way to avoid getting the warrants? It indicates to me a strong possibility that they knew they were doing something that was a no-no.
You assume that the government has some reason to want to listen in to you private communications absent a damn good reason to suspect you of a crime?
My wife runs a website which tracks the details and progres of various animal-cruelty cases around the country. She writes a lot of letters, and has links to organizations that would probably be considered extremist by some, although she herself does not advocate extremist tactics. I have little doubt that she's on a watch list of some kind. Which, to me, is wrong. -
Jennifer,
Here's my problem with 2:42. Even if there was never a 9/11 or the president never issued the order he did - what would stop them?
The technology to tap your phone is at their fingertips. If they are a person who would abuse that technology they wouldn't need the president's anti-terrorism order to do it. Hell they wouldn't even need one of those corrupt reasons. They could just pick your name at random out of a phone book.
The fact is the NSA order has had zero impact on your privacy. -
Yeah, but it's not like they STARTED trying on 9.11. The US has been fending off occasional terrorist threats forever. I didn't hear people shrieking "Get rid of the 4th amendment before we all die!!!!!!" after the OKC bombing. We just tightened up on the fertilizer sales a little bit and voila, no more truck bombs.
I'd feel much safer if they spent even 1/4 of the money that they are currently spending for all of this crap on radiation detection equipment...
Then sent the other 3/4 back to us. -
The fact is the NSA order has had zero impact on your privacy.
What proof do you have of this? -
Jennifer,
I'm relying on your own statement from 2:42 that you could be subject to surveillance at the whim of some corrupt NSA staffer for utterly bogus reasons.
It would seem to me that your privacy faces the same risk from the same corrupt individual with or without the president's surveillance order. -
I'm relying on your own statement from 2:42 that you could be subject to surveillance at the whim of some corrupt NSA staffer for utterly bogus reasons. It would seem to me that your privacy faces the same risk from the same corrupt individual with or without the president's surveillance order.
The difference is, with the president's order this corrupt individual is shielded from any scrutiny for actions which would send anybody else to jail. -
It would seem to me that your privacy faces the same risk from the same corrupt individual with or without the president's surveillance order.
Before, it was illegal and punishable by law. Now, because the executive doesn't like you, it's quite legal, and they're able to get anything they want rubber-stamped. -
Jennifer,
You already can have your life ruined by a currupt individual of the IRS, a lot quicker than some pervert at the NSC who wants to listen to you talk to you boyfriend. Just go ask all of the Clinton critics who amazingly ended up being audited. Not that I condone either one, but I am a hell of a lot more afraid of the IRS messing with my life than I am the NSC. I don't see a lot of risk here, especially when compared to the other abuses that are possible in government. -
You already can have your life ruined by a currupt individual of the IRS, a lot quicker than some pervert at the NSC who wants to listen to you talk to you boyfriend. Just go ask all of the Clinton critics who amazingly ended up being audited. Not that I condone either one, but I am a hell of a lot more afraid of the IRS messing with my life than I am the NSC.
Oh, I see. Clinton often broke the law, so it's fine for Bush to do it, too? -
Jennifer,
I don't think that's a fair reading of John's comment. I think he was using Clinton's IRS audits to expand on my point that your privacy is at the same risk with or without the president's order on conter-terrorism surveillance. -
I think he was using Clinton's IRS audits to expand on my point that your privacy is at the same risk with or without the president's order on conter-terrorism surveillance.
I see nobody here defending Clinton's misuse of the IRS, but plenty of people, John included, dismissing any concerns over Bush's misuse of the NSA. -
This thread highlights for me the difficulty in waging a War on Terror.
Is it to be waged as a full scale war or as a law enforcement matter?
Both sides in this debate seem to be talking past each other.
In war, your intelligence services gather all the information they can. They use every scrap of information they can get to try and put the 'big picture' together. If the NSA is listening to people in the US, even though there are no allegations of abuse, I think we can all agree it has the potential for abuse.
On the other hand, the problem I see going the law enforcement route is that cops act after the bad guys do something.
even the NSA doesn't have the time or manpower to spy on people for no discernable reason
They don't have enough people to listen to every conversation while it takes place, but, they do have the capability to record nearly every phone call that takes place and store it in computers. Voice analysis software can then search through these conversations.
If that makes you wonder why, then, they are even bothering to wiretap them, then you get exactly what the problem is. YES, that is what they are asking. They want to wiretap people who they have no probable cause to suspect are involved with crime. But we should be scared of them anyway because somebody said they're terrorists... they just can't come up with even the miserable pittance of evidence required to get the green light from a court to wiretap.
Consider the following scenario. The NSA is monitoring a suspected terrorist in Pakistan. He receives a call from someone in America. The call seems innocuous. From a law enforcement perspective, this can't be used as evidence. No probable cause. From an intelligence perspective, you keep it, analyze it, see if it fits into some larger pattern. Who knows, maybe this seemingly innocent conversation was actually spoken in some kind of code? Also, why is this guy in America calling a suspected terrorist? Perhaps we should pay closer attention to who he calls and see what turns up.
I don't have any easy answers here. Other than I think one form of oversight we should have concerning the NSA and surveiling Americans is that both the Republican and Democrat chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committees should be informed when an American is put under surveilance by the NSA. -
It would seem to me that your privacy faces the same risk from the same corrupt individual with or without the president's surveillance order.
Before, it was illegal and punishable by law. Now, because the executive doesn't like you, it's quite legal, and they're able to get anything they want rubber-stamped.
T.P. Goiter,
You are assuming that the corrupt NSA individual would be constrained by the fact that it was illegal. Not a very safe assumption in my opinion. -
Other than I think one form of oversight we should have concerning the NSA and surveiling Americans is that both the Republican and Democrat chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committees should be informed when an American is put under surveilance by the NSA.
Also, when the NSA illegally spies on an American, the people involved should, like, totally be smacked on the wrist. -
Both sides in this debate seem to be talking past each other.
And thus it is distinguished from other political debates. -
You are assuming that the corrupt NSA individual would be constrained by the fact that it was illegal. Not a very safe assumption in my opinion.
Eh, you're right. Fuck it. Let's just get rid of all restrictions on government, because it's not like they actually mean anything anyway. -
"But rather, I'm interested in breaking the cycle for a moment, stepping back, and asking the Glenn Reynoldses and Thomas Sowells of the world one question: How far is too far in the War on Terror? "
Why is Sowell often considered a libertarian? It seems to me that outside of a laissez faire attitude when it comes to fiscal policy there's nothing else libertarian about him. He's also for the war on drugs if memory serves me correct. -
Zach,
In TPG's response that prior to the President's order the corrupt NSA staffer who would wiretap someone for complete bogus and/or personal reasons he(?) wrote that it was illegal and punishable by law.
Who exactly would have been holding that NSA person accountable? -
Someone with a conscience who found out about it. Or, more likely, someone looking to score political brownie points, who found out about it.
It's quite possible that no one would, but this isn't relevant to the discussion. The point is that if someone did there would be legal recourse versus none. -
It is relevant.
The point is either there is some internal NSA oversight of what individual NSA people are doing, in which case the reaction to the counter-terrorism surveillance order as an assault on civil rights is overblown.
Or there isn't even internal NSA oversight to prevent individual abuse and the current situation is no worse than it was before. -
On the other hand, the problem I see going the law enforcement route is that cops act after the bad guys do something.
That's an administration talking point, not reality. LEO's have authority to, and do, act proactively to prevent crime. They've been doing it as long as there's been a USA.
Police gather intel just like the military does. We have undercover cops, sting operations, checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, patdowns, exigent circumstance searches, and god knows what else.
Honestly no idea why people are parroting back this "the cops only act after the fact" bullshit the admin is throwing around. Two seconds of consulting one's own knowledge of how cops operate would dispel this stupid idea. -
Independant Worm,
I believe it was the Sudanese who offered Osama Bin Laden to the Clinton administration in the 90's.
The Sudanese where turned down because the Justice Department said we didn't have enough evidence to hold and charge him with a crime.
I am not Clinton bashing. Hindsight is 20/20. I am just saying that law enforcement operates under different constraints that an army (and its intelligence arm).
BTW, don't most undercover operations start when the cops "flip" someone who has commited a crime, thereby getting on the "inside"? -
Why does the latter require the former?
Eric:
IMHO, if the Bush administration is willing to put a critic on the "No Fly List" they might also be willing to use the FBI to spy on their critics?
I don't put it past them for a moment. -
Edit: that should be a period, not a question mark.
-
"Nope, I hit it right on the head, you're just unable to accept it. And yes, they would, as long as their 'hostages' see that it is AQ killing them (which will be apparent) and not the U.S."
quasi, you are determined to miss the obvious. AQ wouldn't be killing any hostages. They will be killing us and hiding behind hostages. The more live babies they surround themselves with, the better. That is the shield you want to grant them. It is a fine, principled position whose outcome is horrific.
You certainly seem committed, though. If I read you correctly, the appropriate response to the Beslan school crisis was to do absolutely nothing and allow 1,000 hostages to be killed. As long as your hands are clean, it is a better result to have 1000 dead than 344. -
My answers are posted here. 4.5 no's, for anyone making stats.
-
No to all except 6, which I don't know enough about to make an informed answer.
-
I have been remiss on this thread so here it goes.
1)No, in fact the current FISA court is too secretive. There is no way to independently confirm the decisions/targets as they are, by definitinon, secret and classified. It isn't like terrorists, drug dealers, mafia types don't already assume that they are being spied upon anyway. Stolen cell phones, throwaway internet accounts and stolen credit cards all make the idea that circumventing a judicially reviewed monitoring program even that much more rediculous.
2)No. Furthermore, what allows us to hold non-citizens without access to lawyer or trial? In the case of Taliban/AlQuiada fighters that were captured in Afghanistan, they are POW's that should be released at the end of hostilities with thier government. Oh, yeah, the Taliban is no longer in power in Afghanistan. If we have any prisoners that are being held on "terrorism" charges then let them appear before a court of law like US Citizens to face thier crimes.
3)If waterboarding refers to torture in general then no. Conflicting opinions of the effectiveness of torture aside, how can we proclaim to be a bastion of peace, tolerance and understanding if strapping unconvicted suspects to a board and whipping them with a rubber hose is an accepted modus operandi.
4)I cannot think of any current journalists that should be investigated. Sedition laws should not be reintroduced. A journalist who procures sensitive information and passes it on to an enemy should be prosecuted under existing treason/espionage laws.
5)No. Matt's statement above regarding the valiant CIA man in the Cafe is a good point but as a matter of legally sanctioned international policy it should not be instituted any more than abducting suspected militants from soveriegn soil.
6)Of course they should have all the tools available in non-terrorist cases pending those tools are of a civil nature. For example, wire taps are fine, just get a court order naming person and place to tap. Asset siezure only upon arrest and conviction. Judicial oversight the entire route. You know, all the things that we no longer have in our day to day police toolkit.
7)No. Asset Forfieture is punishment for a crime without a conviction. I am not sure about temporarily freezing assets to prevent thier movements provided the person to whom the assets belong has been arrested or charged. You can charge an individual in absence so that should not be an issue.
8)No. I don't even know where to begin here.
9)No.
10)No. There is too much classification as it is. That, in theory, is one of the causes of the successful attack on the WTC. I am all for FBI/CIA/Local Police sharing information on legitimate criminal matters though. Again, this is all contingent on our 4th Amendment rights and civil liberties.
To sum up, I would rather rewind the clock 30 years and have those rights and face my death tommorrow from a terrorist attack than live another 60 years in fear of my government.
Now, where'd I put my tin foil hat?? -
By now, we all know the pattern:
Mostly definitely:
(1): Some media outlet releases the latest anonymously-sourced and detail-free report of alleged government wrongdoing.
(2): Reason staffers immediately leap to the worst possible interpretation of events, use their imaginations to fill in the missing details, and begin furiously pounding out screeds condemning the act.
(3): Isolationist libertarians, invoking the extensive knowledge of American law they've derived from smoking pot and bitching about the war on drugs, declare the act to be obviously blatantly illegal and unconstitutional (a word defined in the libertarian dictionary as "Contrary to the teachings of Ayn Rand").
(4): Anyone presenting arguments that the act might be constitutional and/or legal are condemned as fascists and/or fearmongers.
(5): Loud and hysterical predictions are made that American freedom is in dire peril as a result of Bush administration policies.
(6): The next wanna-be scandal comes out. See step (1).
Meanwhile, other Americans listen patiently to the latest round of doomsaying, compare it to the empirical reality that they're not suffering any noticeable loss of rights or freedom, and are in fact in no more danger of oppression than they were five years ago, and go back to ignoring the Libertarian party entirely. -
Isn't it pretentious to pose those ten questions to Glenn Reynolds when he has been consistently on the "no" side of most of them for the past several years? He has been, for example, consistently anti-torture, opposed to imprisoning US citizens without trial, against asset forfeiture, against national ID cards, and so on. What is Matt Welch playing at, pretending he doesn't already know the answers to these questions? Or is it just that he doesn't bother paying attention to what the people he criticizes have actually said and done, because it is more fun to mock their imaginary beliefs than it is to offer honest refutations of their real beliefs?
Welch sounds like one of those idiots who ask libertarians questions like "So you believe it is ok to sell heroin to nine year olds?" and "So you like it when poor people starve?". -
Isn't it pretentious to pose those ten questions to Glenn Reynolds when he has been consistently on the "no" side of most of them for the past several years? He has been, for example, consistently anti-torture,...
Welch isn't the only one who questions the depth of Reynolds' commitment to the anti-torture side of the debate. Take a look at this little ditty under the heading, "Reynolds and Me"...
I'm sorry that Glenn, over the last year and half, said he opposed torture but did nothing to help stop it. In fact, he did much to excuse and ignore it or look the other way, as well as denigrating or condescending to those of us who fought against it. He even argued that vocally opposing torture would only help legalize it, because most Americans were in favor. Mercifully, the American people, as represented in the Congress, have proven him wrong. He lacked faith in American decency. Some of us didn't.
...oh, and, from the same link, under "For the Record"...
...It's one more piece of flim-flam from the good professor to disguise his own sad failure to have the courage of his own alleged convictions. Sorry, Glenn. But the record speaks for itself.
It doesn't look like Matt and Dre' are just makin' it up.
Or is it just that he doesn't bother paying attention to what the people he criticizes have actually said and done, because it is more fun to mock their imaginary beliefs than it is to offer honest refutations of their real beliefs?
If Sullivan's reacting to anything at all (and if you check the links, he seems to be), then Glen doesn't look "consistently anti-torture" to me.
...I'm sure you'll have something shrill to say in response to this; whatever that is, use some Scope or something first. ...don't just say it over the flavor of feet. -
Welch isn't the only one who questions the depth of Reynolds' commitment to the anti-torture side of the debate
Did you just use the fact that Andrew Sullivan thinks Glen is pro-torture as an argument in Matt's favor? Mister "George Bush is the awesomest President ever WAIT he's against gay marriage oh god I HATE HIM I HATE HIM" himself?
I'm not sure why you think Andrew Sullivan's personal opinion is valid evidence of anything. First of all, it is just opinion, and secondly it is Andrew Sullivan. Shall I dig up his old embarassingly gushy pro-Bush posts to prove how awesome the President is, or can we just agree that Andrew's grasp of reality has never been the greatest, and that if the best that can be said of Matt is that he adheres to Andrew Sullivan's standards of intellectual rigor then that's not such a great thing? -
"quasi, you are determined to miss the obvious. AQ wouldn't be killing any hostages. They will be killing us and hiding behind hostages. The more live babies they surround themselves with, the better. That is the shield you want to grant them. It is a fine, principled position whose outcome is horrific."
No, you are determined to fit the world into your pre-determined prejudices. They will have to kill hostages, or hold them at gunpoint, in order for them to be HOSTAGES. Otherwise, they are just accomplices.
Second, if they are hiding behind hostages while they attack, they are many, many things you can do that fall short of storming the gates to neuter them. All things that our law enforcement does on a regular basis.
I mean, you do know that almost every PD in the nation has a policy that basically precludes a storm the gates action, right? Or does that not matter, because it doesn't fit into your sci-fi universe? Ah, that's right, reality based people are unreasonable and stupid. Got it.
You can surround them. Shoot them if they show their faces. Starve them out. Destroy any visible weapons they have. And just wait them out - they give up eventually. That's reality. Not the world that read in your comic books, I know, but reality nonetheless.
As for Beslan, are you purposely mistating the facts, or are you that deluded? Anyway, addressing your comic book version, if you have strong evidence that the hostage taker is just going to kill all of his hostages imminently, then of course you do what you can to save their lives. Otherwise, you do what you can to prevent the hostage taker from posing a threat to anyone else.
All of which is a nice distraction from the original question, which I knew you wouldn't have the guts to answer. How many innocent Iraqis are worth your crusade in Iraq? At what point can we say that it is no longer worth their lives? Looking forward, of course, so that you can't use the mission creep justification of not 'wasting' sunk costs.
Just how many innocents are you willing to sacrfice to achieve your vision of world utopia? -
Addendum:
All of which forgets, of course, that in a libertarian world where individuals are not disarmed by the state, that it would be a very risky course of action indeed, for a person to try to take hostages.
Extending it to our world where states do disarm their citizens, we still have the above discussion of how to deal with them - a strategy that has worked in good stead in this country for a long time, with the attempts to live in your Rambo style world being the notable exceptions and disasters (Waco, Ruby Ridge, MOVE). -
and to make my transformation into Hak complete (where is he, BTW), I will make a triple post -
What is the relevance of your hostage hypothetical to Iraq? Iraq was not, at any recent point, threatening to attack us. So your hostage hypo is utterly irrelevant, and as I noted, a nice dodge to actually answering the question of how many Padawans Annakin is willing to kill in order to bring peace and order to his empire... -
"Otherwise, they are just accomplices."
Well, now that is a thought. The entire segments of middle eastern population who consent to being used as shields are to be treated as accomplices. Let us ponder the implications ...
"I mean, you do know that almost every PD in the nation has a policy that basically precludes a storm the gates action, right? Or does that not matter, because it doesn't fit into your sci-fi universe? Ah, that's right, reality based people are unreasonable and stupid. Got it."
Precludes? That is amazing. SWAT teams never have a green light. I should update the guys I know on SWAT teams. They can stop training breach and clear now, so I'm sure they'll be happy. Quasi, the green light is the first shot fired, which is what happened in Beslan. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
It is you who are dodging the question. If you grant that "you do what you can to save their lives", you are giving the green light for an action that you know will have collateral damage in almost every case. In Beslan, two of the bombs detonated and the blitz was on. It is a pretty clear case of assume 1000 dead hostages or try to do what you can. A cost benefit analysis was made, which in your head is completely impermissible. So, is 1000 dead better than 344 dead as long as your hands are clean?
To answer your question, I acknowledge that there is a cost in innocent lives to ensuring that the particular tactic of the terrorist does not grant him immunity from retaliation. Which is, by the way, the relevant metric. I've not once suggested that utopia would be an outcome. I HAVE suggested that terrorists have worked out a strategy that from your perspective makes them completely unassailable, and I have suggested that such an incentive scheme would result in a hell of a lot more dead innocents. -
On CIA assasination: in moral theory I don't see it as being any more immoral than war - in fact I see it as far more moral (it only involves heads of state and doesn't drag the whole country into the 'ol state sanctioned murder). In practice I can't see it suceeding - the blowback when such a policy becomes public is too great. Also who is to say I trust the judgement of the CIA? So a qualified 'no'.
As for anti-terrorism cops being given the same tools available in non-terrorist cases: Yes. But this is assuming the tools available in non-terrorist cases are just. If not then the issue is not so much to forbid them to anti-terrorist cops but to forbid them period.
No on everything else. But then I'm not even remotely a bush supporter. -
I only got 9 noes and an "I don't know enough about it to know for sure, but I'm not categorically opposed" (for number 4). Let the "you're not a true libertarian" ranting begin.
-
thanks