Monitoring telephone calls into the US by suspected terrorists

[Severian]

Want to know something that's also a far greater danger to society than Al Qaeda will ever be? Misleading overgeneralizations and ideological demagoguery.

 

Was that meant to be self-mocking, or did it just come over that way?

[Pangloss]

Of course I did' date=' but given that I don't believe that everyone held in Guantanamo Bay is a member of Al'qaeda why should I trust the US authorities to be able to tell an 'Al'qeada operative' from a hole in the ground? Who knows, maybe [b']I[/b] am already on a blacklist for expressing my opinions on this site. I certainly wouldn't appreciate my phone being tapped (although they would be pretty bored listening to my phonecalls).

 

Which is a good reason for Americans to be more informed about what's happen, stop accesses and abuses, and pay attention to the world around them.

 

It's NOT a good reason to play Chicken Little.

 

 

Today they are bugging Al'qeada operatives, tomorrow they bug Al'qaeda supporters and the day after they will bug anyone who disagrees with them.

 

And evidence that we'll go sliding down this slippery slope exists... where? We make compromises that fail to lead to the destruction of society all the time. What's factually, logically different about this one, ASIDE from the fact that you're scared to death of it?

[Severian]

And evidence that we'll go sliding down this slippery slope exists... where? We make compromises that fail to lead to the destruction of society all the time. What's factually' date=' logically different about this one, ASIDE from the fact that you're scared to death of it?[/quote']

 

And at what point do you draw the line? Abusing people's human rights at Guantanimo Bay? Invading other countries without good reason? Shooting innocent civilians 8 times in the head on the subway with no warning? Or are you waiting for the internment camps?

[Pangloss]

How about drawing the line at a place where there's no just defense for the other side? That doesn't appear to be the case in the examples you mentioned. That's not to say that your opinion is invalid, it's to say that there is a valid position for the other side.

 

Specifically:

 

Guantanamo Bay: Some excesses by individuals (being prosecuted). On the larger scale, a logically debatable (and therefore valid) position that a higher level of coersive treatment may provide better results. (Not a position I share, but hardly a sky-is-falling, end-of-the-world scenario.)

 

"Invading other countries without good reason": I also opposed the war in Iraq (I wanted international agreement for the long-term strategic geopolitical advantages), but the prima facie case was clearly made here as well, in the form of failure to abide by international agreement.

 

"Shooting innocent civilians 8 times on the subway with no warning": Do you mean the incident in Britain after the London bombings? I can't speak to that; not an American issue, and we're talking about American legal matters here. (But maybe I just misunderstood you.) (Actually in a way this stands as a perfect example of what *I'm* talking about, since it happened and yet... the sky didn't fall.)

 

 

And so your conjecture about "waiting for internment camps" is revealed to be idle speculation, not evidence that we're actually halfway down that slippery slope.

 

Want a dozen more counter-examples of things we didn't do in the past that we seem to be able to cope with now just fine? Or are you able to set ideological insanity aside and acknowledge the fact that just because a compromise is made does not mean that the end of the world is nigh?

[nova]

And at what point do you draw the line? Abusing people's human rights at Guantanimo Bay? Invading other countries without good reason? Shooting innocent civilians 8 times in the head on the subway with no warning? Or are you waiting for the internment camps?

 

We have already had internment camps, some 60 years ago.

 

If we were on a slippery slope then, how is it that anyone in the US is free today?

 

60 years is a long time.

[Jim]

Of course I did' date=' but given that I don't believe that everyone held in Guantanamo Bay is a member of Al'qaeda why should I trust the US authorities to be able to tell an 'Al'qeada operative' from a hole in the ground? Who knows, maybe [b']I[/b] am already on a blacklist for expressing my opinions on this site. I certainly wouldn't appreciate my phone being tapped (although they would be pretty bored listening to my phonecalls).

 

Today they are bugging Al'qeada operatives, tomorrow they bug Al'qaeda supporters and the day after they will bug anyone who disagrees with them.

 

You are in a position to assess the NSA's ability to build a list of suspected terrorists?

 

Seriously, reading the 9/11 report, I'm struck with how carefully the agents were applying the FISA standards. I see no evidence that the NSA is a rogue agency that would "bug anyone who disagrees with them."

[Jim]

And at what point do you draw the line? Abusing people's human rights at Guantanimo Bay? Invading other countries without good reason? Shooting innocent civilians 8 times in the head on the subway with no warning? Or are you waiting for the internment camps?

 

Boy, this is tough. Let me see if I can draw lines here. These examples all blend so easily into the other.

 

As a general matter, I would accept:

 

1. Monitoring calls by suspected terrorists into the United States.

2. Invading a hostile, unstable regime, friendly to terrorists, callous to human life, with the potential to acquire WMDs when that regime had invaded a strategically important US ally, lost, committed to disarm WMDS and disclose, refused to disclose, attempted to assassinate a former US president, been subjected to UN sanctions and still continued to refuse to disclose even as US military power gathered to invade.

 

Oh, nooooo, I'm on the slippery slope! Can't... help... myself.. I suddenly find myself compelled to support... it's all blending together, can't.. stop... must ... support... abuse of prisoners, shooting people on subways and... *sob* internment camps.

 

I stand corrected.

[swansont]

Uh huh. Fine' date=' fine, I'll drop it, but I know a tap-dance when I see one.

 

Are you sure you didn't work in the White House during the 1990s??? [/quote']

 

You know, all I did was point out that you were changing the context when you talked of monitoring all phone calls out of a country known to harbor terrorists, when we were discussing tapping phone conversations from known terrorists, in order to protect the US from a terrorist attack.

 

I don't think a US service member poses the same threat to US as a terrorist does, nor do I think that tapping the conversations of a US service member's call to the US would have the potential to uncover a plot to damage the US to nearly the same extent as tapping the conversation of a terrorist's call to the US. And I don't see how this position earns me the labels of "tap-dance" and "obfuscation."

 

With what, exactly, do you disagree?

[Pangloss]

No sir, what you did was imply that it would be wrong to tap the conversation of a US service member, and you did so in order to marginalize the counter-argument. That's called "spin", and you'll either admit it or you will not, but when it happens here I will point it out.

 

You're quote:

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.

 

I caught you on it, called you on it, and not only could you not admit to what you said, and not only did you spin it (as you continue to do), but you saw fit to spin what *I* was saying as well, deliberately misconstruing my replies, not once but *twice*.

 

Even after all of that, you could have had the last word, but now you've re-opened it again, so *I'm* going to have the last word. You did it, I caught you on it, and that discussion is over.

[Severian]

That is completely pathetic Pangloss. You deleted my entire post just because you can't deal with my objections to your argument. Not a flame in sight....

[Severian]

Let's try again shall we, or will you just keep deleting?

 

Guantanamo Bay: Some excesses by individuals (being prosecuted). On the larger scale' date=' a logically debatable (and therefore valid) position that a higher level of coersive treatment may provide better results. (Not a position I share, but hardly a sky-is-falling, end-of-the-world scenario.)

[/quote']

 

It is an abuse of human rights to keep people locked up (in atrocious conditions) indefinitely without trial. This is a perfect example of how you have lost sensitivity to such abuses.

 

Actually in a way this stands as a perfect example of what *I'm* talking about, since it happened and yet... the sky didn't fall.

 

Do you really believe that shooting an innocent person through the head for no reason is defensable? Would you feel the same way if it was you? Would you feel the same way if it was your brother? The sky certainly fell for the poor bugger with his brains splattered all over the subway.

 

Or are you able to set ideological insanity aside and acknowledge the fact that just because a compromise is made does not mean that the end of the world is nigh?

What do you think - should I report you for this flame?

[Severian]

You are in a position to assess the NSA's ability to build a list of suspected terrorists?

 

That is the point. Who is going to asses the NSA's ability to not abuse their powers? You? Who would you class as a "suspected terrorist"? The guy living down the hall with a turban perhaps? What about the leader of Hamas - is he a terrorist in your eyes?

[Pangloss]

Oh really? Not a flame in sight? Funny how you left said flame out of your repost then, isn't it? You didn't seem to have any problem locating which phrase was objectionable and removing it, all without any further prodding on my part. I'll be darned.

 

Now you can take your lumps and abide by the rules like anybody else, or you can act like a little cry baby and get all defensive. But if you chose the latter again you'll be doing so in private.

[Pangloss]

Now that you've cleaned up your act, I feel comfortable responding to your more civil tone.

 

It is an abuse of human rights to keep people locked up (in atrocious conditions) indefinitely without trial. This is a perfect example of how you have lost sensitivity to such abuses.

 

In fact I happen to share this position. But it wasn't my intent to fully assess the entire situation with prisoner detainment.

 

You asked me at what point I would agree that we're falling down the slippery slope. My answer was the point at which the other side of the argument has no valid defense. In this case they have a valid defense. You may not like it' date=' but it has logical, defensible validity.

 

Does it make sense to return combatants to the battlefield during an engagement? What constitutes an engagement or conflict? What constitutes due process for foreign nationals? What constitutes "coersive force" as distinguished from "torture"?

 

These are just SOME of the valid questions being asked. Therefore the sky has not fallen, the end of the world is not nigh, and future policy is being shaped.

 

 

Do you really believe that shooting an innocent person through the head for no reason is defensable? Would you feel the same way if it was you? Would you feel the same way if it was your brother? The sky certainly fell for the poor bugger with his brains splattered all over the subway.

 

You can throw out all the straw men you like but it's not going to change the substance of this discussion, because both sides have plenty of straw men they could throw out here and, oddly enough, we seem to be able to still talk about these things in freedom.

 

Want an example of a straw man from the other side? How about the fact that income tax was once thought to have one and only one result: Socialism and the end of freedom in America. Yet here we are half a century later, paying our taxes and continuing to exist in a relatively free market and free social communty, in spite of having to give up a very large portion of our income at the point of a gun.

 

And maybe, just maybe, we've learned a better way of doing things in the process. Maybe we've learned that some level of loss of that freedom is worth it for the gain. Maybe we've learned that speaking in absolutes and being inflexible isn't always such a great idea. Maybe we've learned that listening to one another instead of shoving our ideologies in each others faces is a better way.

[Pangloss]

You know, just to give one more obvious example, the founding fathers of my country, generally considered to be a fairly smart group of guys, actually left this country, which was founded on the notion of equal rights under law, with the greatest travesty of freedom ever conceived still in place.

 

If they believed that your slippery slope was the inevitable consequence of every single case of a travesty or injustice, hell I don't think those guys could have even lived with themselves. Their dilemma is something that ideologues can never understand. How could they make THAT compromise, of ALL compromises? What could they possibly have been thinking?

 

And yet... here we are.

[Severian]

Getting a bit happy with that ol' delete button there....

 

So you think slaverly is OK to practice too then, do you?

 

In summary, you seem to think that it is OK to do evil things because 'the sky won't fall in'. Is that a fair summary of your position?

[Pangloss]

Nope, and you know it's not.

 

The founding fathers were hardly happy about leaving slavery in place. What they knew, however, is that if they pushed as hard as they would need to push to eradicate it, then the country would cease to exist almost before it even existed, and the whole "grand experiment" would be for naught.

 

So they compromised. And they lived for the rest of their lives knowing that people suffered as a result of that compromise. Even worse, they had to know that there was always a possibility that smarter men might have been able to find SOME way to fix things so that the country would work without slavery. (How'd THAT be for a kick in the ol' wooden teeth, as you lie on your death bed?)

 

Compromise is not a dirty word. People do the best they can to find the solutions that they are able to find. Sometimes that means people get hurt. Imperfect solutions are settled for. It's an ugly world out there.

 

But somehow we get through it and we continue to exist, more or less, by and large, in something like the form of what was intented. The sky doesn't fall, the world doesn't come crashing to an end, and people are still free to talk about the issues, debate the merits, and try to form a better policy for the future.

 

That's what it's all about, guy.

[Severian]

Compromise and sacrifice are all very well if it is your own comfort or security you are compromising and a sacrifice that you are making, but it is not acceptable when you sacrifice others for your own security.

 

You are living in a dream world if you think that compromise was the reason that the founding fathers didn't object to slavery. They didn't object because they didn't want to give up their slaves.

 

The sky doesn't fall, the world doesn't come crashing to an end, and people are still free to talk about the issues, debate the merits, and try to form a better policy for the future.

....but we are all a little bit poorer in spirit.

[Jim]

That is the point. Who is going to asses the NSA's ability to not abuse their powers? You? Who would you class as a "suspected terrorist"? The guy living down the hall with a turban perhaps? What about the leader of Hamas - is he a terrorist in your eyes?

 

Your slippery slope argument is absurd. The examples you give have no logical connection except for your paranoia about this administration. This program was briefed to the leaders of the intelligence committee and is about to be subjected to enormous scrutiny at Congress. There is no evidence that it is going to lead to internment camps in America. The program at some point would get out in the press and if that didn't happen, we will have another president some day.

 

I'm not saying the concern about civil liberties is irrelevant. My problem with your posts is that you go to extremes. I am, in your view, more of a threat than Bin Laden. I didn't put that LOL in there gratuitously; you really did make me laugh several times today. Thanks.

 

Pangloss, if the offending post was in response to something of mine, I'd prefer to deal with it. Please trust me that nothing I've seen thus far from Severian is going to get under my skin.

[Severian]

Your slippery slope argument is absurd.

 

I never once used a slippery slope argument. I am against bugging people's phones because it is wrong.

 

There is no evidence that it is going to lead to internment camps in America.

You already have internment camps run by America - what is the difference?

 

My problem with your posts is that you go to extremes. I am' date=' in your view, more of a threat than Bin Laden.

[/quote']

 

I have never met Bin Laden. He has done nothing that affects me directly. I certainly don't feel threatened by him. However, the US and UK governments have affected my life by making life more inconvenient in the name of security. Now they want to start removing my rights. You tell me who is more threatening.

 

Pangloss, if the offending post was in response to something of mine, I'd prefer to deal with it. Please trust me that nothing I've seen thus far from Severian is going to get under my skin.

 

It wasn't. I accused Pangloss of lacking empathy (seriously - those were my words!). He is a sensitve soul...

[Pangloss]

I never once used a slippery slope argument.

 

Really? Well let's see....

 

I truly think that the people who are trying to take away our civil liberties at home in the name of security are actually a bigger threat to my way of life than any member of Al'qaeda ever could be.

 

Today they are bugging Al'qeada operatives, tomorrow they bug Al'qaeda supporters and the day after they will bug anyone who disagrees with them.

 

And at what point do you draw the line?

 

Sure sounds like a slippery slope argument to me.

[entwined]

 

I have never met Bin Laden. He has done nothing that affects me directly. I certainly don't feel threatened by him. However' date=' the US and UK governments have affected my life by making life more inconvenient in the name of security. Now they want to start removing my rights. You tell me who is more threatening.

..[/quote']

 

I think this pretty well illustrates the value of your contribution to this discussion.

 

It appears that you believe that if it (a terrorist attack) didn't happen to you personally, it either didn't happen or it is not important enough to take steps to see to it that it doesn't happen again.......

[Severian]

Sure sounds like a slippery slope argument to me.

 

Nope. No slippery slope there. Try harder next time.

[Jim]

In an attempt to find some common ground, I think that the issue here really does boil down to whether you view this to be a war. I bet that Severian would not object to this program if it were being carried out in WWII (of course assuming that the technologies existed in the 1940s). If the national survival was at sake or if we were fighting the evil of Hitler, I bet he would want a highly efficient mechanism to intercept and read every communication by the enemy into the United States. He would probably say that he'd prefer a warrant to be obtained but that in wartime when the national survival is at stake the important thing is to intercept every such communication.

 

Am I right so far?

 

As I've posted before, I think the point at which the discussions here really break down is whether we are in a real war against a real enemy. A portion of the administration's position is from the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld opinion:

 

The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government's alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi's detention, through the AUMF.

 

Our analysis on that point, set forth below, substantially overlaps with our analysis of Hamdi's principal argument for the illegality of his detention. He posits that his detention is forbidden by 18 U. S. C. §4001(a). Section 4001(a) states that "[n]o citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Congress passed §4001(a) in 1971 as part of a bill to repeal the Emergency Detention Act of 1950, 50 U. S. C. §811 et seq., which provided procedures for executive detention, during times of emergency, of individuals deemed likely to engage in espionage or sabotage. Congress was particularly concerned about the possibility that the Act could be used to reprise the Japanese internment camps of World War II. H. R. Rep. No. 92-116 (1971); id., at 4 ("The concentration camp implications of the legislation render it abhorrent"). The Government again presses two alternative positions. First, it argues that §4001(a), in light of its legislative history and its location in Title 18, applies only to "the control of civilian prisons and related detentions," not to military detentions. Brief for Respondents 21. Second, it maintains that §4001(a) is satisfied, because Hamdi is being detained "pursuant to an Act of Congress"--the AUMF. Id., at 21-22. Again, because we conclude that the Government's second assertion is correct, we do not address the first. In other words, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals in the narrow category we describe (assuming, without deciding, that such authorization is required), and that the AUMF satisfied §4001(a)'s requirement that a detention be "pursuant to an Act of Congress" (assuming, without deciding, that §4001(a) applies to military detentions).

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (emphasis added)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=03-6696

 

 

This decision deals with "the legality of the Government's detention of a United States citizen on United States soil as an 'enemy combatant.'" Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, held that the detainment of prisoners is "so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the 'necessary and appropriate force' Congress has authorized the President to use."

 

What makes you uncomfortable, I'm guessing, is that this "war" has no end in site. It's not being fought against any country and there is no ground to gain. I've posted earlier that I share this concern although I'd wager I am closer to thinking this is a genuine war than you.

 

The point of Justice O'Connor was that Congress did not draw this kind of distinction in its authorization of force resolution. Perhaps it should but it did not. Instead, on September 18, 2001, Congress passed the following joint resolution:

 

 

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

 

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

 

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

 

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

 

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

 

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

 

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

 

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

 

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

 

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

 

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

 

 

Approved September 18, 2001. (emphasis added)

[Severian]

I think this pretty well illustrates the value of your contribution to this discussion.

 

It appears that you believe that if it (a terrorist attack) didn't happen to you personally' date=' it either didn't happen or it is not important enough to take steps to see to it that it doesn't happen again.......[/quote']

 

I had a cousin (well, second cousin actually) who was blown up by Nelson Mandella's thugs and a (not so close) friend killed by the (American funded) IRA. Why was that so different from Al'qaeda?

 

For that matter, there are a lot more people killed in car accidents every day, but we don't ban cars.

 

This 'war on terror' isn't being fought because there is any real danger to the populace. It is being fought as a public relations exercise. It is supposed to make us feel safe in our beds at night. Because the western public are such sensitive souls (just like Pangloss).