The FISA debate as an example of rightward drift in American politics

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Mar 3, 2008.

  1. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    Nope. It doesn't work that way, if I sack my own freedoms, but leave yours alone, I am just as at risk as I was before.

    The yielding of freedoms only works because it's mutual, as I'm not really afraid that I'm the terrorist that needs to be monitored, I'm afraid that you are. If I could figure out a principled way to limit your protections while maintaining my own, *that* would be the ideal, but notions of equality and reciprocity disallow that.

    The good news is that the lost freedoms include things like "someone may hear your phone calls." Most likely (unless one is a terrorist), nothing will ever come of that. Even if they overhear you plotting a drug sale, it's unlikely they'd use it against you, and even if they did, it might not be admissible in a court of law if there was no warrant.

    Now, if you are a non-American, *then* there are pretty harsh limits on your freedom, as then suspicious activity can land you in a secret prison or Guantanamo, depending on the circumstances.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    So you intend to take my freedoms, out of cowardice.

    How are you any less of an enemy to me than the shadows you fear ?

    If I am going to fight, it will probably be against my true enemies, and not your illusory fears, yes ?

    The total failure of imagination involved in that sentiment would be hard to credit if it were not so common.

    The government will listen in on not only your calls, should reason emerge, but your doctor's, your lawyer's, your zoning commissioner's, your police chief's, your employer's, your spouse's, and so forth. You will never be able to muster dependable allies again, in any dispute you have with a government official or anyone who has special leverage with a government official. And as we have seen with the Attornies General, the government will use this leverage for political gain. Evidence admissable in court is the least of your worries.

    And looking down the road: "admissable in court" does not even apply to those detained as potential terrorists. Not even US citizens.

    Meanwhile, this entire conversation is an excellent example of scale drift in US political debate - again, not "rightward" but "authoritarian", would be my label for the scale.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    you dont think this "evidence" could be used by the goverment against the oposition?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    What might happen is not the same as what is happening and what has happened. If one continually deals in what-ifs, government, and most especially the intelligence agencies, wouldn't be allowed to do anything.

    The fact is the US intelligence community has far more oversight in place now than at any other time in its history. Whether what is in place is enough is something that can and should be debated, but not under the ridiculous terms the two parties engage in and not with the hyperbolic nonsense people on this site like to dress up with flowery words and put forward as rational concerns.

    Most people who love to quip and complain about the tension between civil liberties and the intelligence business, especially on this site, know fuck all about what the men and women at places like the CIA and NSA actually do. They might try reading some books before they reach their quick conclusions.
     
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    ummm have you herd of watergate?
     
  9. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Yes, I have. And in mentioning it, you're doing a fine job displaying the sort of ignorance of history I am talking about. No intelligence agency had anything to do with Watergate.
     
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    it shows the perpencity of the executive goverment to abuse there access to these sort of intercepts and tech

    this is a MUCH bigger risk than terriousts
     
  11. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    No, it doesn't. You don't even know what you're talking about. Bugging devices? Anyone can get those. There were no intercepts. Again, try reading a book some time...

    All Watergate shows is what a politician with questionable morals can do with lots of money, nothing more. Again, the intelligence services weren't involved. Nixon, who clashed with the CIA his whole tenure, basically paid a bunch of people to bug an office and collect dirt on his opponents. The exact same thing could happen today, and it would have just as little to do with the intelligence agencies as Watergate did...
     
  12. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    it would just be that much easier to do it WITHOUT questions being asked.
     
  13. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Sure, whatever. Let me know when you have an argument that makes sense.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No government can be trusted with the power of warrantless search. What has happened under every government so privileged is as well documented as any government abuse there is.

    Why would an honest government even want it ? What's the big deal with getting a warrant - we've even set up a secret and compliant specialized Court, with judges available 24/7/365 for granting them retroactively.

    To fail to obtain a warrant under such lenient and convenient circumstances suggests deliberate evasion of accountability for some reason.
     
  15. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Although I am more willing to defend the intelligence agencies than you are, I am by no means an authoritarian. I have seen every level of government close up, and have very little faith in most of it.

    However, this issue is not as black and white as the two political parties, or supporters and detractors attempt to make it. Hersh's story, now linked to thanks to your chum, accurately raises very real concerns that the intelligence community has about FISA. Some system needs to be in place and that system needs to have oversight, but I'm not sure what manner of system and what manner of oversight.

    And here's something else. One of the things that has always amused me about the outrage from people about the domestic/foreign calls being monitored stateside is that it's possible, and totally legal, for NSA to monitor the exact same calls from the other side. That is, instead of listening to someone from Pakistan calling the US from an installation in Maryland, the NSA could listen to the same call by tapping the call on the Pakistani side from an installation overseas — and break no law doing so.

    Again, the matter is more complicated than I think people know. But no, I'm not for the current muddle of a system...
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Without warrants, there is no oversight. You can't oversee something you can't see at all.

    The "intelligence community" has very real concerns about the entire Bill of Rights. It definitely interferes with their freedom of action in protecting the State from its enemies.

    Meanwhile, the "citizenry" has very real concerns about the "intelligence community" - such as why, after the discovery of the surveillance rooms set up in major telecom centers for warrantless wiretapping of domestic calls and supplied with feed of every single call routed through those centers, no one has had their ass thrown in jail.
    The other side State might have a different say. But no matter - so what? The Bill of Rights does not protect travelers to foreign lands either. Americans enjoy many civil rights not possessed by the unfortunate people of other countries, and Americans often have to be careful, when travelling or calling or dealing with those countries, to remember that.

    Something to which the traditional response has been gratitude for the wisdom of the Founders, and so forth. Now, as Tiassa observes, the response is to have a debate about whether we really want these civil rights, or whether we would be better off without them. That's quite a shift in the terms of debate.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2008
  17. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    The oversight body could be given summations or breakdowns of who is being tapped and why without specifics and without warrants being filed on every case, but sure warrants would create a better paper trail. I'll not argue that point. Look, if it's possible that enough judges can be found and the hurdles the intelligence community is complaining about can be overcome, then I'm all for what you're saying. If it can't, then I think some other reasonable oversight can be found that achieves the same goal under slightly different terms. There's no need to be such an absolutist on this issue. I don't think anyone wants to enable an Orwellian nightmare...

    The important thing is to make certain that the right people are being listened to for the right reasons. Who those people actually are isn't terribly important so long as the intelligence agencies can justify their actions and prove they aren't engaging in surveillance that violates privacy concerns for questionable motives.

    The intelligence community, which apparently you completely disdain, have hundreds of lawyers working for them. They do not routinely trample the Constitution the way you and some of your ilk would have us believe, if for nothing else, than for career-advancement purposes.

    Consider, for example, how timid George Tenet was in the CIA's efforts to kill bin Laden in the 90s. His concern, according to his critics, was that killing OBL would have violated the presidential ban on assassinations and landed Tenet in the sort of hot water Bill Casey found himself in during the 1980s.

    There are also practical concerns, which you continue to ignore. Put simply, as I have said in the past, the NSA and others do not have the time and resources to endlessly bug people and try to sift through it for relevancy. It's just not possible. Being that they are interested in useful intelligence gathering, their self-interest compels them to create a system that is effective and doesn't waste their time. One doesn't achieve such a goal listening in on random Americans.

    Can you provide a link for this?

    You've totally missed the point of what I was saying. Or you chose to ignore it. Either way, it's safe to assume that NSA has a station wherever there is an American military base. It also operates listening aircraft and ships. So, theoretically speaking, the NSA can chug a ship across the Atlantic, park it in the gulf and listen to the same international calls, from the other end, that have you so worked up.

    It's a fine point, I know, but it's one that frames some of the hyperbole that often gets attached to this issue by people like you and your chum, Tiassa. In other words, some perspective would be nice, but I could never hope to have that from either of you.

    The issue we're grappling with here is one the Founding Fathers should be left out of. They have nothing to say about this is anything other than opaque, philosophical terms. Philosophy is important, but problematic when one tries to apply it to an issue as nuanced and contemporary as this one.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Far from ignoring them, I have emphasized them - the implicatiosn are very disturbing. For the kind of targetted monitoring that is the only useful kind, the existing FISA system is pretty much adequte - as Tiassa noted, even a little overboard, and should be made more accountable.

    What that means, if true (and it's exaggerated, but a factor) is that the entire warrantless operation is essentially worthless for its only legitimate purpose - filtering out terrorist conversations from the great volume of domestic phone calls. That brings up the question of what its purpose actually is, adn to what use it will be put - has been put, in all probability.

    The important thing is to make sure the government can't tap and search and seize without warrants, the minimum requirement of accountability. After that we can worry about foreign terrorists and other comparatively minor hazards.
    I got it. It's trivial. It's always been true. If Ben Franklin wrote a letter to a Frenchman in France whom the US was spying on, the US spy could open that letter - in France - without a US warrant, and break no US law.
    Now the Bill of Rights is opaque and philosophical ? Bullshit. The US government is and has always been, from the day of its Founding, forbidden to search the private communications of its citizenry without a warrant. There is nothing vague about that.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2008
  19. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    An even starker indicator of your drifting politics: indications are you own stark.

    Your future isn't going to be your own.
     
  20. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    a politician with questionable morals you mean all of them?
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    GOP hypocrisy and a glimmer of hope from House Dems

    Hypocrisy seems to be the buzzword this week, and the FISA debate brings us an interesting example. Glenn Greenwald notes:

    This interesting twist will provide some measure of how far to the right the public discourse has drifted. After all, if the Democrats actually manage to make a stand and push through a bill that takes a more reasonable approach to the wiretapping issue, we might take at least a small dose of comfort from the notion that things aren't quite as bad as they've seemed of late.

    House leadership, for the record, granted Boehner's request for a closed session. The House vote is scheduled for tomorrow morning.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Greenwald, Glenn. "The principled, honest House Republicans". Unclaimed Territory. March 13, 2008. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/13/house_gop/index.html
     
  22. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Tiassa, how can the legilative HAVE closed sesions?

    Im not 100% sure but i THINK everything that passes the australian parliment HAS to be public not private. Im assuming that some senate estimates are held privatly but it would be a rare thing i would assume. Hell i have SEEN the head of ASIO draged in front of a public senate estiments hearing
     
  23. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Here's your answer: "Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio said the House needs to have an "open and honest debate about some of the important details about this program, that don't need to be heard in public."

    It's not like this is national security or anything...
     

Share This Page