Monitoring telephone calls into the US by suspected terrorists

[Severian]

To quote an American:

 

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

[Jim]

To quote an American:

 

I'm sure ol' Ben would apply a rule of reason so we could still conduct warrentless searches of American citizens boarding airplanes.

 

I'm still flabbergasted that this hasn't been front and center in the MSM. If I'm reading this right, application of FISA was one of the direct causes of the government's failure to prevent 9/11. This isn't according to some conservative rag, but according to the esteemed 9/11 commission.

 

Seriously, all politics aside, in light of this evidence don't we want the NSA reviewing every communication into the United States made by suspected El Queda terrorists even if we have no proof the recipient is an agent of a foreign power?

[Pangloss]

Maybe more to the point, a lot of the founding fathers might have disagreed with Franklin on this issue. It's also interesting that a new ABC News poll showed the majority of Americans agreeing with the monitoring. It's also notable that most members Democrats seem to agree with the monitoring as well. It's mainly the hardcore left that's opposed.

 

I think it's important to draw a distinction between the issue of monitoring and the issue of whether the White House broke the law. It is NOT inappropropriate or contradictory or hypocritical for the opposition part to agree with the decision to monitor and disagree with the process that was used. In fact it's necessary for any opposition party to be able to make that distinction in order for our government to function.

[Jim]

I think it's important to draw a distinction between the issue of monitoring and the issue of whether the White House broke the law. It is NOT inappropropriate or contradictory or hypocritical for the opposition part to agree with the decision to monitor and disagree with the process that was used. In fact it's necessary for any opposition party to be able to make that distinction in order for our government to function.

 

I wasn't suggesting it was hypocritcal. There are two issues but I think there is a confluence too. Bush's actions are more defensible if there is a flaw in FISA which this clearly indicates.

[swansont]

Maybe more to the point' date=' a lot of the founding fathers might have disagreed with Franklin on this issue. It's also interesting that a new ABC News poll showed the majority of Americans agreeing with the monitoring. It's also notable that most members Democrats seem to agree with the monitoring as well. It's mainly the hardcore left that's opposed.

[/quote']

 

Is that the right metric? Many Americans think there should be school prayer and that creationism (now ID) should be taught; perhaps even a majority. Does that mean we should do these things? The founding fathers recognized that you have to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority.

 

If most Americans agree, however, is it surprising that the politicians will align themselves accordingly?

 

If someone is willing to give up their rights that's up to them, but they can't make the decision for someone else, who is unwilling to do the same thing.

[swansont]

I wasn't suggesting it was hypocritcal. There are two issues but I think there is a confluence too. Bush's actions are more defensible if there is a flaw in FISA which this clearly indicates.

 

From your own quote it seems to indicate that the flaw was in somebody else providing the pertinent information. "Either the British information or the Ressam identification would have broken the logjam." So the information was out there that would have made a warrant obtainable, but somebody dropped the ball. It wasn't a failure of the FISA system.

 

edit to add: What is MSM?

[bascule]

I liked what This Modern World had to say about it:

 

[Jim]

From your own quote it seems to indicate that the flaw was in somebody else providing the pertinent information. "Either the British information or the Ressam identification would have broken the logjam." So the information was out there that would have made a warrant obtainable' date=' but somebody dropped the ball. It wasn't a failure of the FISA system.

 

edit to add: What is MSM?[/quote']

 

The references I provided clearly indicate that the problem was meeting FISA's requirement that there be proof that the recipient is an agent of a foreign power. This is exactly the argument I was making from a plain reading of the statute without even knowing these facts. In all honesty, you don't see this as buttressing my prior point at all?

 

I can't count the number of times the MSM has referenced the 72 hour notice period to show that the NSA program was not needed without ever referencing this key requirement which is in black and white in the 9/11 report. Come on, now, you have to admit this supports my point.

 

More importantly, I'll ask again, don't you want every communication by El Queda into the United States monitored even if the NSA lacks evidence that the receipient is an agent of a foreign power?

 

JIm

 

PS: MSM is Pangloss and my short hand for mainstream media.

[Jim]

I liked what This Modern World had to say about it:

 

 

Gotta love left wing humor.

 

I can't wait to see the Doonsbury where they laugh it up about the critical deficiency in FISA documented by the 9/11 commission as hindering our effort to prevent the deaths on September 11, 2001.

[swansont]

The references I provided clearly indicate that the problem was meeting FISA's requirement that there be proof that the recipient is an agent of a foreign power. This is exactly the argument I was making from a plain reading of the statute without even knowing these facts. In all honesty' date=' you don't see this as buttressing my prior point at all?

 

I can't count the number of times the MSM has referenced the 72 hour notice period to show that the NSA program was not needed without ever referencing this key requirement which is in black and white in the 9/11 report. Come on, now, you have to admit this supports my point.[/quote']

 

I thought that the NSA is not chartered to do domestic surveillance, so that link is absolutely required for them to get involved. Otherwise you get a warrant for the FBI, or you do the spying abroad. If you can't show he's an agent of a foreign power, you have to have some other evidence to get a warrant. But if you have no evidence you get no warrant.

 

More importantly, I'll ask again, don't you want every communication by El Queda into the United States monitored even if the NSA lacks evidence that the receipient is an agent of a foreign power?

 

I absolutely do.

 

As Pangloss already noted, it is incorrect to equate this position with disagreeing with the decision to bypass the FISA court. It isn't the monitoring, it's the apparent disregard for the legalities of how that monitoring will be conducted.

 

PS: MSM is Pangloss and my short hand for mainstream media.

 

I eventually figured it out, but thanks.

[Pangloss]

If someone is willing to give up their rights that's up to them' date=' but they can't make the decision for someone else, who is unwilling to do the same thing.[/quote']

 

Well, we give up various freedoms against our will, so really the question here is whether one of them should be our freedom to speak to people in nations known to harbor terrorists without being monitored by an NSA agent.

 

Just to give an example of why I think that may be okay, I see no reason at the moment to suspect that this is indicative of a larger effort to remove other freedoms. Just because I pay taxes doesn't mean I think the government is about to take ALL my money away, nor have I lost the right to debate and complain and cajole my congresscritters about the AMOUNT of money I have to pay each year, or how it is spent.

 

This sort of real-world reasoning is why discussions like this succeed, and thoughtless, unimaginative ideology, like the cartoon bascule posted above, fails.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Jim

More importantly, I'll ask again, don't you want every communication by El Queda into the United States monitored even if the NSA lacks evidence that the receipient is an agent of a foreign power?

 

I absolutely do.

 

As Pangloss already noted' date=' it is incorrect to equate this position with disagreeing with the decision to bypass the FISA court. It isn't the monitoring, it's the apparent disregard for the legalities of how that monitoring will be conducted.[/quote']

 

 

Then all of this talk about the 72 hour notice is irrelevant. FISA is a flawed law the observance of which would have endangered the national security.

 

The only issue is whether the President acted within his constititional powers in determining not to obey those flawed and dangerous requirements enacted in 1978. Even if a Court disagreed, there is no evidence Bush showed "disregard for the legalities." Courtrooms across the country are filled with litigants who have a differing few of the law. All of the evidence I've seen indicates that this was not done lightly and that full regard was given to the legalities. Not surprisingly, the legilsative branch has a different take on executive power than does Bush.

[swansont]

Then all of this talk about the 72 hour notice is irrelevant. FISA is a flawed law the observance of which would have endangered the national security.

 

I don't see how you reach this conclusion. As I pointed out previously, the flaw was not in the requirement of determining Moussaoui was an agent of a foreign power, since that information did exist. Further, your own quote says that the FBI did not even apply for a warrant, because the information they did possess wasn't sufficient (in their opinion).

 

The 72-hour requirement being cited applies to the more recent NSA surveilance, AFAIK, which is a different situation. You are comparing apples and oranges.

[swansont]

Well, we give up various freedoms against our will, so really the question here is whether one of them should be our freedom to speak to people in nations known to harbor terrorists without being monitored by an NSA agent.

 

Note that there is a very distinct difference between conversations with suspected terrorists, which is the wording I've seen used related to the current situation, and conversations with "people in nations known to harbor terrorists," which would include speaking with a US service member serving in Afghanistan.

[pcs]

According to who? You? Are you an authority on Constitutional law?

 

I'll go with the ACLU's interpretation' date=' thanks.[/quote']

 

Be nice if you actually had some supporting case law to go with that cherry picked salad.

[pcs]

Is that the right metric?

 

Sure, why not?

 

Many Americans think there should be school prayer and that creationism (now ID) should be taught; perhaps even a majority. Does that mean we should do these things?

 

Definitely. I can't see a reason why not. Give the people what they want.

 

The founding fathers recognized that you have to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority.

 

To an extent, always to an extent. You could also say they recognized that the majority has a presumptive right to enforce its will on a minority. These slogans are stupid and meaningless unless we actually flesh out what they mean.

 

If most Americans agree, however, is it surprising that the politicians will align themselves accordingly?

 

You mean is it a surprise that most Americans vote for people who share their interests? No.

 

If someone is willing to give up their rights that's up to them, but they can't make the decision for someone else, who is unwilling to do the same thing.

 

A majority might.

[Pangloss]

Note that there is a very distinct difference between conversations with suspected terrorists, which is the wording I've seen used related to the current situation, and conversations with "people in nations known to harbor terrorists," which would include speaking with a US service member serving in Afghanistan[/b'].

 

Uh, yeah, we definitely want the NSA refraining from monitoring people based on emotional objections....

[swansont]

Uh, yeah, we definitely want the NSA refraining from monitoring people based on emotional[/i'] objections....

 

I don't see the point of your apparent sarcasm. The two phrases have distinctly different implications. In the one case, you are monitoring communications with specific persons, and in the other you monitor every communication coming from a particular country. With what are you disagreeing?

[Pangloss]

You implied that there's something wrong with monitoring "US service members serving in Afghanistan". Wouldn't that be the exact sort of person you would *want* to monitor, given the obvious security vulnerability they represent?

 

Also, didn't you include that phrase solely to raise a spector of evilness in this policy by implying that these would in fact be the LAST people you'd want to monitor?

[Jim]

I don't see how you reach this conclusion. As I pointed out previously' date=' the flaw was not in the requirement of determining Moussaoui was an agent of a foreign power, since that information did exist. Further, your own quote says that the FBI did not even apply for a warrant, [b']because the information they did possess wasn't sufficient (in their opinion).[/b]

 

The 72-hour requirement being cited applies to the more recent NSA surveilance, AFAIK, which is a different situation. You are comparing apples and oranges.

(Emphasis added).

 

Wasn't sufficient to establish what?

 

You agree that you want every terrorist communication into the United States monitored yet that is something FISA expressly does not do. The 72 hour grace period is irrelevant if you lack information that the recipient of the communication is an agent of a foreign power.

[swansont]

You implied that there's something wrong with monitoring "US service members serving in Afghanistan". Wouldn't that be the exact sort of person you would *want* to monitor' date=' given the obvious security vulnerability they represent?

 

Also, didn't you include that phrase solely to raise a spector of evilness in this policy by implying that these would in fact be the LAST people you'd want to monitor?[/quote']

 

What is the "obvious security vulnerability" that is represented here? I don't think a service member is more of a threat than a member of al-Qaeda. Not by a long shot.

[Pangloss]

What is the "obvious security vulnerability" that is represented here? I don't think a service member is more of a threat than a member of al-Qaeda. Not by a long shot.

 

I said vulnerability, not threat. Members of the armed forces are working behind the lines in "green zones" and directly with fellow soldiers and could, in theory, cause a major disruption at a critical moment. Therefore they represent an obvious potential vulnerability, and would have to be monitored with at least the same level of circumspection you would give to any other phone call in or out of that country. I have no information to this regard, but I suggest that this is currently the case.

 

So to reinterate my point:

 

You implied that there's something wrong with monitoring "US service members serving in Afghanistan". Wouldn't that be the exact sort of person you would *want* to monitor, given the obvious security vulnerability they represent?

 

Also, didn't you include that phrase solely to raise a spector of evilness in this policy by implying that these would in fact be the LAST people you'd want to monitor?

 

Hence my earlier reply.

[swansont]

I said vulnerability' date=' not threat. Members of the armed forces are working behind the lines in "green zones" and directly with fellow soldiers and could, in theory, cause a major disruption at a critical moment. Therefore they represent an obvious potential vulnerability, and would have to be monitored with [i']at least[/i] the same level of circumspection you would give to any other phone call in or out of that country. I have no information to this regard, but I suggest that this is currently the case.

 

A major disruption of what? We're talking about the security of the US. Or at least, I was, and thought you were.

[swansont]

(Emphasis added).

 

Wasn't sufficient to establish what?

 

To establish Moussaoui was an agent of a foreign power. The FBI didn't even try to get a FISA warrant; it's not like they had been turned down. You blame FISA for this' date=' but the FISC never got involved. It's not like Moussaoui was public enemy #1 at the time; the FBI couldn't get a criminal warrant because they had no probable cause. So what distinguishes this case from any of hundreds or thousands of leads that the FBI was tracking down? Are we sure that the reason they didn't pursue a warrant more aggressively was because it just didn't seem like it was a priority? The 9-11 report indicates that senior people in the FBI were not convinced he was a terrorist. Is there any way to tell if the warrant requirements had been relaxed that they would have chased this down before all of the other cases that would also have been affected? Manpower is finite. Information about Moussaoui became a priority only after 9/11. The problem seemed to be motivation to pass information along, not the FISA requirement for the information.

 

You agree that you want every terrorist communication into the United States monitored yet that is something FISA expressly does not do. The 72 hour grace period is irrelevant if you lack information that the recipient of the communication is an agent of a foreign power.

 

So you change the law, and protect the civil rights of US persons with proper judicial oversight.

[Pangloss]

A major disruption of what? We're talking about the security of the US. Or at least, I was, and thought you were.

 

I've explained this in sufficient detail. Soldiers work with other soldiers secure areas. They stand on the front line alongside other soldiers in battle. They guard VIPs and diplomats, and they guard each other. We already had one case of a soldier blowing himself up in anger during the build-up to the Iraq war. Not to mention the case of the Filipino spy in the White House who was a former US soldier.

 

I'm not sure I understand what it is that you're missing here. Again I state my case:

 

You implied that there's something wrong with monitoring "US service members serving in Afghanistan". Wouldn't that be the exact sort of person you would *want* to monitor, given the obvious security vulnerability they represent?

 

Also, didn't you include that phrase solely to raise a spector of evilness in this policy by implying that these would in fact be the LAST people you'd want to monitor?