"A stupid diversion of scarce resources from the real target"

Matt Welch | January 17, 2006

The ACLU has filed suit against the National Security Agency for what it alleges is unconstitutional surveillance of Americans. That's the dog-bites-man story. The man-bites-dog angle is that one of the co-plaintiffs is none other than War on Terror enthusiast Christopher Hitchens. From his statement:

We have recently learned that the NSA used law enforcement agencies to track members of a pacifist organisation in Baltimore. This is, first of all, an appalling abuse of state power and an unjustified invasion of privacy, uncovered by any definition of "national security" however expansive. It is, no less importantly, a stupid diversion of scarce resources from the real target. It is a certainty that if all the facts were known we would become aware of many more such cases of misconduct and waste.

We are, in essence, being asked to trust the state to know best. What reason do we have for such confidence? The agencies entrusted with our protection have repeatedly been shown, before and after the fall of 2001, to be conspicuous for their incompetence and venality. [...]

The better the ostensible justification for an infringement upon domestic liberty, the more suspicious one ought to be of it. We are hardly likely to be told that the government would feel less encumbered if it could dispense with the Bill of Rights. But a power or a right, once relinquished to one administration for one reason, will unfailingly be exploited by successor administrations, for quite other reasons. It is therefore of the first importance that we demarcate, clearly and immediately, the areas in which our government may or may not treat us as potential enemies.

Comments

|1.17.06 @ 12:14PM|#

Good on you, Hitchens. He's starting to make sense again.

|1.17.06 @ 12:39PM|#

The links between pacifist groups and Hamas are much less documented than those between violent right wing groups and gun rights groups, RC.

|1.17.06 @ 12:43PM|#

unavoidable inefficiencies

Orwell couldnt have said it better himself.

Captain Holly|1.17.06 @ 1:05PM|#

Given that the current Supreme Court seems to be interpreting the Constitution to suit the latest zeitgeist (see previous posting), I'm not sure this case will be the slam-dunk the ACLU and some left-wing libertarians think it is.

I'm predicting it will be held to be Constitutional, and hopefully then some on the Left will stop their "Impeach Bush" posing. In fact, this might be a case of "careful what you wish for": It would be very revealing to see how many Democrats would actually vote to repeal FISA.

|1.17.06 @ 1:19PM|#

He doesn't really care about "abuse of state power" or "domestic liberty". It's all about whether he approves of those whose liberty is being abused.

Could you give some examples, especially of him not caring about "domestic liberty?"

|1.17.06 @ 1:26PM|#

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some of these organizations don't have ties to the likes of Hamas.

The Quakers have Hamas ties!

My Oatmeal is funding terror!


Vincente Del Victorious

|1.17.06 @ 1:31PM|#

Captain Holly-- yeah man, it's only us "left wing" libertarians who care about the Bill of Rights, warrants, checks and balances, due process, and all that hyper-technical "procedural" bullshit. Others, I suppose, will take a government-sanctioned ass-raping if only they get a lower marginal tax rate.

Hitchens is on the side of the angels here, but I thought this line was funny:

"a stupid diversion of scarce resources from the real target."

That is exactly what sane people have been saying about the entire Iraq fiasco, not that Hitchens will ever concede the point.

Larry A|1.17.06 @ 1:33PM|#

The links between pacifist groups and Hamas are much less documented than those between violent right wing groups and gun rights groups, RC.

You mean like SWAT teams, DEA units, etc?

|1.17.06 @ 1:37PM|#

"It would be very revealing to see how many Democrats would actually vote to repeal FISA."

I don't think the Democrats want to repeal FISA, I think they want to Bush to use FISA.

|1.17.06 @ 1:47PM|#

i'm beginning to think that someday a religion will form around Orwell like Hubbard. Is there some reason everyone needs to say 'sounds like Orwell' 'Orwell couldn't have said it better' 'i'd like to screw orwell'. it's a fiction book folks, get over it.

Warren|1.17.06 @ 1:50PM|#

Could you give some examples, especially of him not caring about "domestic liberty?"

No, you got me there. Chris has a long record of advocating strong opposition to radical Islam. It seems you can't be too safe when it comes to killing towel heads for Chris. But I can't find where he has written anything about hunting them down here at home. He had some kind words for Ashcroft back when he was pissing on The Nation.

|1.17.06 @ 2:11PM|#

It seems you can't be too safe when it comes to killing towel heads for Chris.

Well, that's not a fair statement, either. It's also a little crude. People who use the term "towel heads" don't differentiate between Muslims and fundamentalist Muslim terrorists. Hitchens has been clear in separating the two.

I disagree with Hitchens on his support for the war, but I suspect his enthusiam for it is based largely on the friendships he made in the 90's with the Kurds in Northern Iraq. He has also been quite critical of Ashcroft and the Patriot Act in the past.

|1.17.06 @ 2:19PM|#

Chris has a long record of advocating strong opposition to radical Islam. It seems you can't be too safe when it comes to killing towel heads for Chris.

So if I'm not into "killing towel heads", I can't strongly oppose radical Islam? Darn.

|1.17.06 @ 2:23PM|#

i'm beginning to think that someday a religion will form around Orwell like Hubbard. Is there some reason everyone needs to say 'sounds like Orwell' 'Orwell couldn't have said it better' 'i'd like to screw orwell'. it's a fiction book folks, get over it.

Well, I was going to say something like "we've already seen what kind of life we get when blatant constitutional violations are passed off as 'unavoidable inefficiencies'." But "Orwell couldn't have said it better" was more succinct, IMO.

|1.17.06 @ 2:45PM|#

"A stupid diversion of scarce resources..."

This is what I think everytime I see Larry King draw a breath on TV.

|1.17.06 @ 2:48PM|#

I know it's all been said before, but if we are at war, and if this is a war with no clearly defined "end", and if the president can do as he or she pleases for the extent of this war, defending and concealing his/her actions behind "national security", then the government is no longer functioning as intended. That's just a fact.
Of course, this'll probably get me on some watch list. I'll find out the next time I fly...

R C Dean|1.17.06 @ 2:50PM|#

Joe brought up a good point, RC--if you think it's okay for the government to spy on homegrown pacifist groups, do you think they should also do warrantless spying of members of gun clubs, or people who attend gun shows?

I speculated that perhaps the surveillance of that pacifist group was at least potentially justifiable, if they had ties to/were patsies for/had regular contact with an overseas terrorist group like Hamas or AQ.

You're charged with monitoring AQ activities in the US, you note that there is periodic communication with a given number, and that number turns out to be registered to a bunch of hippies in San Francisco. Why exactly would you stop surveillance of calls to that number? What basis do you have for concluding that absolutely nothing that AQ or Hamas might have to say to these folks who it is in regular contact with could possibly have any national security implications?

I think that it is probably justifiable for the government to monitor all communications with AQ or Hamas, without a warrant, because of these group's status as sponsors of terrorism. I really don't care who they are talking to in this country, I think the government, in its fundamental role as the protector of our safety from hostile tribes, ought to be listening in. Is that irrational?

I don't think the government needs warrants to monitor any communications with "hostile nations", regardless of who (else) is on the phone. Anyone who gets on the blower to AQ, or Hamas, or (back in the day) the Soviet Union, shouldn't be shocked to learn that their phone call was under surveillance as a matter of national security.

Now, how does this translate over into wiretapping my phone because I went to a gun show? It doesn't. Nice straw man, though.

R C Dean|1.17.06 @ 2:53PM|#

Note that I am not saying that the surveillance of that pacifist group is justified. I don't know, and (my point) neither does Hitch or anyone else on this thread.

Domestic surveillance-wise, though, it sounds just like the kind of stunt Bobby Kennedy would have approved, back in the day.

|1.17.06 @ 2:58PM|#

R C-

1) If somebody in the US gets a phone call from a known terrorist, do you really think the FISA court will reject the application?

2) How do we know that this pacifist group is being monitored because they got calls from Hamas? We don't. Granted, there's really no way can know the basis for an ongoing investigation of such a sensitive nature. But if the system were working we'd at least know that an independent panel saw evidence that members of the pacifist group were in contact with terrorists. Following the law entitles the system to more benefit of the doubt than breaking the law.

|1.17.06 @ 3:00PM|#

I speculated that perhaps the surveillance of that pacifist group was at least potentially justifiable, if they had ties to/were patsies for/had regular contact with an overseas terrorist group like Hamas or AQ.

You speculated, without one whit of evidence, that these people DO need to be spied upon. So if the government can conduct warrantless wiretaps against pacifists based on mere "speculation," why not against gun owners as well? You know, the guys who actually do have a history of being opposed to the US government? The ones who gave us phrases like "jack-booted thugs," and have bumper stickers saying that they'll start an armed revoltuon before letting the government register their guns?

Bear in mind, RC--I'm not actually saying that gun owners or gun-club members should be spied upon by the government. I'm just showing that the arguments you use to justify government spying on "those people" can just as easily be used to justify spying on "you." And, considering our government's fondness for mission creep, someday, probably soon, those arguments will be used to spy on you and your NRA buddies.

|1.17.06 @ 3:32PM|#

RC, if you're clarifying to limit your comments to situations in which there is evidence that a specific domestic group has a relationship with someone from Al Qaeda, then that's cool. Your earlier comment could just as well have been interpretted to mean that, since there are allegedly some pacifist groups that have, or have had, contact with some unsavory, anti-American types, that snooping on pacifist groups is justified on those grounds. If that's a misreading, my bad.

Of course, I'll second Jennifer: if such evidence of contacts exists, get a freaking warrant!

|1.17.06 @ 3:48PM|#

Anyone who gets on the blower to AQ, or Hamas, or (back in the day) the Soviet Union, shouldn't be shocked to learn that their phone call was under surveillance as a matter of national security.

Don't mean to pile on you RC, but just to be clear, are you suggesting that a warrant isn't necessary for this serveillance?

R C Dean|1.17.06 @ 4:37PM|#

If somebody in the US gets a phone call from a known terrorist, do you really think the FISA court will reject the application?

Who said there was time to ask a court?

You speculated, without one whit of evidence, that these people DO need to be spied upon.

And Hitch speculated, without one whit of evidence, that they didn't. I posited a scenario where it would be justifiable to monitor their contacts with a foreign terrorist group, nothing more. Nowhere in my hypothetical did I say the monitoring was based on speculation; indeed, the hypothetical assumes that there are ongoing contacts, not that someone speculates there are ongoing contacts.

if you're clarifying to limit your comments to situations in which there is evidence that a specific domestic group has a relationship with someone from Al Qaeda, then that's cool.

That's exactly what I am doing. Links between lefty/pacifist groups and the likes of Hamas are not exactly unknown, you know - that chick who got run over by the bulldozer is Exhibit A.

Don't mean to pile on you RC, but just to be clear, are you suggesting that a warrant isn't necessary for this surveillance?

I don't think it is. In broad terms, the fact that foreign party, whether a state or a stateless enemy, that poses a threat to US security is on the line means that this simply doesn't fall within the category of a search for which a warrant is needed, any more than a soldier needs an arrest warrant to take a prisoner on the field of battle.

|1.17.06 @ 4:45PM|#

Who said there was time to ask a court?

FISA gives 72 hours for a retroactive warrant.

|1.17.06 @ 4:48PM|#

RC Dean,
the time to ask a court for a FISA warrent is within 72 hours of the tap. So, unless it's the Friday before a 3-day weekend, the tappers shouldn't have a problem.

I don't think it is. In broad terms, the fact that foreign party, whether a state or a stateless enemy, that poses a threat to US security is on the line means that this simply doesn't fall within the category of a search for which a warrant is needed, any more than a soldier needs an arrest warrant to take a prisoner on the field of battle.

You are aware that we're also fighting a war on drugs; how thin a line is there between "security risk" and "risk of lawbreaking?" How soon will we hear about the record drug seizures from Bolivia and Colombia as a result of executive wiretaps?

My theory is that this administration (and really, every administration since FDR) has a secrecy fetish. They would invent a legal status called "double-secret no stampsies probation" if prompted. They seem to operate on the idea that they are the wholesome guardians of a sheeplike public, and only by their skills and the grace of god can we be protected from invading hordes, be they communist, muslim, or any other deviation from the norm.

Sorry about that rant. It's over now.

|1.17.06 @ 5:33PM|#

Jennifer --

Do you really think the government will ever spy on right-wing groups as vigorously as it does left-wing groups? I don't. For some reason, right-wing groups have the presumption of patriotism and the left-wing groups have the presumption of treachery, thus the latter need to be watched much more closely than the former.

|1.17.06 @ 6:10PM|#

Do you really think the government will ever spy on right-wing groups as vigorously as it does left-wing groups? I don't. For some reason, right-wing groups have the presumption of patriotism and the left-wing groups have the presumption of treachery, thus the latter need to be watched much more closely than the former.

It probably depends on the government. Remember back in the 90s, all those news stories which made it sound like every single person in Montana and Idaho was a frothing mad right-wing militia nut just seconds away from overthrowing the government and setting up an Aryan paradise?

Randy Weaver wasn't a left-winger by any stretch. I don't think David Koresh was, either.

|1.17.06 @ 6:41PM|#

Hitchens is in favor of whatever annoys whichever crowd currently tolerates him. He thrives on negative attention.

|1.17.06 @ 7:52PM|#

Hitchens is in favor of whatever annoys whichever crowd currently tolerates him. He thrives on negative attention.

Dismissing someone with an ad hominem is a lot easier than actually addressing their ideas.

|1.18.06 @ 8:35AM|#

You waffled, RC. First you claimed that, yes, you were talking about cases of specific evidence linking specific people, and then you backtracked into general statements of lefty groups and their proclivities.

Just pointing out that I noticed.

Peter K.|1.18.06 @ 10:37AM|#

"Hitchens is in favor of whatever annoys whichever crowd currently tolerates him. He thrives on negative attention."

Dismissing someone with an ad hominem is a lot easier than actually addressing their ideas.

Or even offering evidence. Hitchens has been very consistent throughout the years. He was against the police state of Saddam Hussein and now he's against the police-state tactics of the Bush administration.

Thing is, Hitchens is very effective with the ad hominem form of attack also, and people tend to hold a grudge about this.

|1.18.06 @ 11:39AM|#

This whole "anyone who calls AQ needs to expect to have their phone tapped" line is such utter bullshit. One, as others have said, a suspect in this scenario would have a FISA warrant against them approved so fast it would make your head spin, so no need for the end-round. And given the 72 hour grace period, timeliness is not an issue either (and given the ex post facto nature of this approval process, what exactly is the effect of an after-the-fact denial by the court? Oh darn, we can't do that roving wiretap on that throw-away phone that we've been tapping for the last 3 days and has now been thrown in the garbage. Other than admissibility in court, which does not seem to be the government's concern, what is the practical effect?). Second, and most critically in terms of the "this provides security" argument, anyone who is calling AQ DOES know that their phones are being tapped, or at least assumes so, and therefore WILL NOT CALL someone in AQ. They will post to a website, or use a courier, or something. These guys stopped using satellite phones ages ago for this reason. They are not stupid (or in the alternative, they ARE stupid, and therefore not the Lex Luthor-type masterminds whose defeat requires shredding the constitution). President Bush is a criminal, literally, and there is no getting around it. I can't believe anyone claiming to be a libertarian can possibly defend him in this regard. Torture, arrest without charge or trial, spying without a warrant, etc. This is like something out of a dystopian sci-fi novel, except, you know, it's actually happening.

|1.19.06 @ 1:17AM|#

Guys. The whole wiretapping/FISA thing is a puppet act to distract you. The real story is that the NSA is sluicing through millions of call records to hunt for calling patterns.

This has no legal basis anywhere.