I could not agree with this post by Jack Balkin more:
I don't know whether NSA domestic surveillance programs were important in providing needed intelligence to stop the bomber's plot. I will assume that they were. What lesson should we draw from that fact? The right lesson is that these programs are important and that some version of them will be part of our country's governance for the foreseeable future. The wrong lesson is that because they helped us they should continue to operate outside the law.
As we move toward a national surveillance state, government officials will convert what began as emergency strategies into long term forms of governance. Domestic surveillance in some form is here to stay. It is not a temporary or emergency measure. Because it is here to stay, it must be placed firmly and squarely under the rule of law. If we do not do so: if we say to ourselves-- "how wise our leaders were to break the law so that we could be safe"-- we will create a Frankenstein monster. Again, I repeat: The issue is not whether our government should engage in information collection and analysis to safeguard us against asymmetric warfare and terrorist plots. It should. It must. The issue is whether we will let the executive do so without legal accountability, without the checks and balances necessary to ensure that people who believe they are acting in the country's best interests do not abuse their authority because they are so certain that they alone know how to keep us safe , and refuse to listen to anyone else-- or even feel that they must be accountable to anyone else. It is not foolhardly to assume that if terrorist groups attacked us once they will attack us again. That, sadly, is the sort of world we live in today. But it is also not foolhardy to assume that if we let government officials act outside the law they will overreach, make mistakes, and abuse their power. That also, sadly, is the sort of world we live in.
Hear, hear. The issue is not whether we gather intelligence information through surveillance, wiretaps and the like. The issue is whether there are any safeguards in place to prevent their misuse.
- Log in to post comments
Might I add:
They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic, and will be alike influenced by the same causes. The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold on us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.
--Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia
I'm not sure what causes it but most of the "pro-tap" people with whom I get into discussions about this topic just can not comprehend the idea that operating these surveillance programs without any oversight and done in ways to directly sidestep the law and the FISA courts is dangerous. They just can't get over the "what you don't want to stop the terrorists" or "They're only listening to terrorists" line of thought out of their head.
Hey numbskull how do you know that they are only listening to "terrorists"?
"I trust the government" or worse "I trust Bush"
ugh
"Trust but verify"
The funny thing about this is that, to the extent that the U.S. was involved in the investigation, the government actually obtained warrants for this case.
From the Washington Post:
"In the days before the alleged airliner bombing plot was exposed, more than 200 FBI agents followed up leads inside the United States looking for potential connections to British and Pakistani suspects. The investigation was so large, officials said, that it brought a significant surge in warrants for searches and surveillance from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret panel that oversees most clandestine surveillance."
So, working within the law as intended brought down the terrorists. That pretty much destroys the argument for warrantless wiretapping.
"Well, would you rather trust Hillary Clinton with this power, or put the proper safeguards in place while the Republicans control the White House and Congress?"
It amazes me how rarely an average partisan will stop to consider the scenario with the shoe on the other foot.
This argument begins by conceding too much. We know how recent plots were foiled, and sweeping surveillance illegal or legal has not been a factor.
The recent British plot was foiled by a relative of one plotter tipping off the police, and then routine policework governed by law and oversight led to the arrests. The Liberty City, FL plot was uncovered by policework following up a tip by a local resident.
A serious discussion of anti-terrorist would start by discussing our experience of what works and how the things that work can be improved, and perhaps by looking at what failed and whether failed approaches should be scrapped or revamped. Broad domestic surveillance programs are clearly in the 'failed/irrelvant' category.
Yeah you see the glimmer of fear when you tell them that but I think they are still assuming that they'll continue to be in power in '08 and beyond.
Thought you may be interested in this site all about surveillance.
Thought you may be interested in this site all about surveillance.
Thank you, that is a very interesting link. . .
I don't think they believe anyone other than their own party will have control of those powers. The reasons for this are worrisome: at best, they think a public majority will keep electing them, but at worst I think some believe that elections won't be necessary.