Since the new era that dawned on September 11th, rights have been in constant jeopardy. By now, most people dont even think of this as newsworthy.
Its unfortunate that the American Apathy bit is so deeply engrained into the National conscience. A recent New York Times article tells a true tale of woe. Over the last 16 months, police have been surveying Iraqi protestors, Critical Mass bike riders, and even people holding a vigil for a slain cyclist.
this used to be a no no for the police, but now, its ok.
Who cares? Surveillance isn't so bad. Its only if they use it against you.
And this is a good bit that leads back to Lynne Warren's piece. The media (not liberal, just hyper) is getting all bent out of shape about this. If people really looked at the facts, not just the hyperbole about SPIES and what not, they would realize the government needs these additional tools.
The fact is, technology has developed to a point that most rules governing law enforcement activities are outdated. The gov. can't even data-mine, which is a ridiculously effective and efficient use of technology for spying. Far better than a guy in a trenchcoat outside your window.....
The government can't even keep track of pedophiles, they NEED more spying tools!! Does the government tend to discriminate against liberals more than conservatives? Yes, but that has not changed in millions of years. The powerful have always watched the weak with a weary eye.
Get over it and continue on with the good fight.
Wow, Sean - you seem willing to cede some civil liberties which I would not so generously give up on your behalf. You do, I trust, recognize the distinction between surveilling those who would cause to inflict harm and/or death on innocents, and those who just hold politically inexpedient views.
So please share with us the facts as you see them. Why is it that, say, Critical Mass riders should be surveilled? Do you or don't you recognize an inherent right to privacy in this country?
Critical Massers give up some right to privacy by making their cause public. If we were talking about people who practice something in private, say, masturbation, or art that no one sees, I would say yes, that is a shame. But if you don't want to be surveyed, don't make a political statement by blocking traffic during rush hour. (and sure, we can all point to the case of Steve Kurtz as an example of an artist whose rights have been trampled on, but name one more....and we can all scream and say 'one is too many', and it is, but both sides can make that idealistic statement)
Before I "share facts", name one civil liberty that has been 'ceded'. Don't just say 'privacey' because that is too general. Its like the dickheads who say their Second Amendment rights are being taken away by not being able to carry a concealed bazooka.
After reading the NY Times article you cite, the only thing being ceded or trampled or whatever is the 'Handschu settlement', which was a lawsuit filed in 1971 regarding NYC police tactics to survey yippies and black power protesters. The case was settled in 1985 when NYC agreed to a few additional standards before they surveyed protesters. Not a big deal. Really.
I've always believed I was being surveyed, so maybe my paranoia was avant-garde...the difference between me and a knee-jerk liberal is that I know that what I do is wholly innocent and I don't worry about it. I'm pretty sure the FBI would get bored long before I did something truly evil....
Artist-types like to complain about the government because it is an easy target. The government is a faceless authoritarian body that no one really cares for, unless they need it. But if you really want to make some changes, it isn't
this
Here's what you said:
and I'm interested in being educated here - so lay it on me.
That line is in reference to all the new techniques being used for wiretaps (see front page of today's Tribune: "Nation's phones tapped".) The operation is a data mining to find calling patterns.
Since the inception of digital technology, it has become incredibly easy fror anyone, with good or evil intentions, to change identities.
For instance, many aspects of what is now grouped together as identity theft were not even considered crimes until about 10 years ago. Now identity theft is one of the easiest and wide-spread crimes.
Anyone can now change cell phone numbers and email addresses with less than an hours notice. Traditional wire-taps required a court order for every new phone number. A criminal changing cell phones every couple of days can easily evade surveillance.
Ultimately, the worst that has happened is that our 'civil liberties' have been rolled back to the pre-1970s, which is when many of these laws governing the NSA and settlements over surveillance were inacted. Considering the world has become much more complex and dangerous for America (largely our fault, in any case), it only makes sense.
As for cops infilitrating Critical Mass and other groups, I find it embarrassing that certain government agencies are so dumb. Paranoia is a good thing, but investigating ever possible threat is a waste of resources. But in any case, it seems the worst that has happened from it, beyond wasting our tax dollars, is that the critical mass people were "annoyed". Ooooh, too bad.
The thing that gets me is that Americans only seem to get annoyed when their own rights are 'trampled' and they are put under surveillance. The NSA has been spying on foreign countries for decades! Why not us?
I'm all for using bikes to commute....in good weather I bike to weather over 10 miles each way, although I seriously question the effectiveness of some of the tactics used by Critical Mass. Unfortunately, I've come the belief that the conservative economists might just be right in that the biggest factor that will change people's minds and habits is money. Since the surge in gas prices there is a waiting list for hyrbid cars.
well Dave, cool as a cucumber as usual.....welcome to sharky waters Sean....as one of the later day artletter people who actually possesses the ability to articulate opinions -that is.........
The thing about surveillance (that's what we're talking about, right, not surveying?) is that it's typically done inside this country by organizations such as the FBI.
When it involves national intelligence issues, the NSA is provided with a mechanism which allows them to get legal permission. So ask youself this question, Sean - since the FISA courts are set up specifically for this reason, why didn't the President go to them for permission? My understanding is that the law provides 72 hours after the wiretap has occured to get permission from the court.
Additionally, why, when asked during the last Presidential campaign, did the POTUS go out of his way to specify that there is always a court order provided when such snooping is required?
Here's the exact quote:
Here's a link to the White House web site for the source of this quote: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
You seem fairly well informed, so I assume you're aware that the USA Patriot Act (USAPA) provides for "roving wiretaps," right? And remember all that hooey that then Atty. General Ashcroft tried to feed to the 9/11 commission about the "wall" preventing information sharing between foreign and domestic intelligence agencies? Turns out that was BS, along with his claim that the wall itself was instituted by commission member Jamie Gorelick.
Now, back to the original point. You may lament the myopic stupidity of devoting resources to infiltrating Critical Mass, or the poker night group recounted in Al Franken's book "Lying Liars..." and I would agree.
But are you aware that there have been instances where these agents have actually become agents provocateur? The 1968 Democratic National Convention here in Chicago is an example. Another is the Public Enemy/Sonic Youth show at the Riviera (I think - it may have been Aragon) back in the 90's. Yet another example can be found in the anti-war rallies which were held on Michigan Avenue in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
So, I ask again - do you or do you not recognize a constitutional right to privacy? Your comment "Who cares? Surveillance isn't so bad. Its only if they use it against you." is ponderous at best, and it seems to embody a few fallacies:
There are reasons why our foreign intelligence agencies are legally prevented from spying on American citizens. This doctrine derives from examples which go back centuries, and it seems patently obvious, to me at least, that a pluralistic republic requires that the government is required to provide adequate, reasonable suspicion in order to conduct searches and seizures.
Lastly, to answer your question "Name one civil liberty...": Google the name Jose Padilla. While you're at it, Google "Branch Davidian."
d
"1. You haven't got anything to worry about if you're not doing anything wrong"
sssssssss, ooh. im always doing something wrong.
quite a bit of activity here over the last 7 hours it appears. im glad this article hit such a nerve.
the civil liberties in question were the basis for the founding of the country. its tough when you see it only took a couple hundred years for the higher powers to decide that they had it all wrong in the first place.
perhaps you 'oldies' can recall a time when people stood up for these rights, and their voices were heard. i was born in to a land of Reaganomics and paranoia, and so while it is disappointing that these freedoms are in question, it seems like they always have been, and they always will be, untill they are all gone.
Yeah, I was wrong about roving wiretaps, the Patriot Act allows it. And, in my experience, the FBI needs more power. I'm all for reinstating most of the provisions of the Patriot Act. I was recently involved in a situation in which the FBI got involved and I have to say, those agents are overworked, understaffed, and overpowered by the 'evildoers', whether they be terroritsts or con men.
Its Christmas Eve, which for some reason my wife didn't let me eat meat and instead we ate seven dishes of seven fishes, or something Dr. Seuss-like.
So all I can take time to comment on right now regards this statement:
"its tough when you see it only took a couple hundred years for the higher powers to decide that they had it all wrong in the first place."
I wish I knew an older Japanese American who could tell us about how their civil liberties were eradicated during the Second World War when they were all put in internment camps. Oh yeah, and what about women's suffrage, slavery, workers strife during the Industrial revolution, migrant workers (now and then), the Civil War. If you consider all of this, we are living in rather dull times.
If you believe this country was founded to support civil liberties then you must not have learned much since elementary school. The country was founded to help western Europeans, specifically the upper class English, and to preserve their civil rights; every group that has come over since or challenged this country in any way has had to fight.
This country has not changed one bit, only adapted to meet the new demands; it never was as idealistic as people like to believe. Its exciting and self-agrandizing to think we are living in tragic times, but times have always been tragic, and that will never change.
I'd actually like more rights to be taken away. Maybe I'm a masochist, but I think it would inspire better art and maybe even make Americans appreciate just how nice they have it.
some of the things you mentioned are looked upon today as things to be ashamed of doing/having been done. things like womens suffrage arose from the violations of civil liberties. Internment camps are looked upon as a shamefull destruction of civil rights. In fifty years, its quite possible the patriot act will be viewed in a similar manner. The president recently said that he allowed wire taps. this is impeachable in the same manner that nixon was impeachable for 'information harvesting' of the democrats pre-watergate. if the patriot act keeps moving along, this could become an ok thing to do. this might smell of a totalitarian govts actions.
Bush messed up not because he did these things, but the way he went about it. The war in Iraq could have been a good thing (still could be, a commentator recently said Bush has put himself into a place where he will be looked back upon either as one of the greatest presidents or the worst president ever) if he had gotten more allies. The Middle East needs democracy. As for the surveillance, he would have gotten permission, but Bush ignored the usual safeguards and procedures he should have gone through to get permission.
I don't think its the sign of a totalitarian government so much as a stupid administration with no respect for his peers or predecessors that created the rules he ignored. Nixon wasn't a totalitarian (liberal by today's standards!), just a paranoid creep.
"Bush messed up not because he did these things, but the way he went about it."
Time will soon tell if both of these things are true, or only the second of them. To my mind they are one and the same.
"The war in Iraq could have been a good thing (still could be, a commentator recently said Bush has put himself into a place where he will be looked back upon either as one of the greatest presidents or the worst president ever) if he had gotten more allies."
But Sean - ask yourself "why was the President unable to 'get more allies'?" The reason is that they knew then what the rest of us know now - the war was predicated on stilted, cherry-picked intelligence, Peter Pan optimism and an egregiously negligent lack of post-invasion planning.
The problem isn't that the post-invasion plan was ill-conceived. The problem is that it was non-existent.
When the war began I was willing to set aside my concerns about this effort, mainly in hopes that they would get it right. When they fired Jay Garner it actually looked as though they might just be moving the ball downfield. And even though I'm opposed to almost everything this administration has done (one notable exception would be the invasion of Afghanistan, though they split too soon, IMHO), I sincerely hoped that they would get it right, because we can't afford to get it wrong.
Will G. W. Bush be regarded as the greatest POTUS in history? I the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo: "if that happens, I'll eat my hat."
Again, I'll ask you the two really salient questions:
1. Do you or do you not believe in a Constitutional right to privacy?
2. Why do you think President Bush didn't go to the FISA court in the first place?
These questions are at the crux of this discussion, I believe.
Now, as to your synopsis of the founding of this great country, I would strongly encourage you to read Walter Isaacson's superb biography of Benjamin Franklin, because I really think you've got your history wrong. Additionally, if you think you're getting an accurate rendering of US history in grade school, then I suggest you do yourself a favor and check out The Federalist Papers, the writings of John Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville, and others.
There were several conflicting causes at work in the founding of this country, not the least of which was the Colony's inability to defend themselves from the rampant attacks of Native American and French forces. But the philosophical underpinnings which form the predicate of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights have very little to do with "helping Upper Class British" exclusively.
I believe this country has changed a great deal, for what it's worth. As a polity we are much more self-aware, and the clearly-articulated mission of self-determination has cause this self-awareness.
I happen to know someone who lived through the Japanese internment camps - what would you like to know?
And then there's this:
"I'd actually like more rights to be taken away."
Fortunately you don't get to make the decision for the rest of us. A comment such as this makes me curious as to your age.
I don't think the US had an exit strategy or a post-invasion plan when America entered WWII. Europe has gone soft and selfish, they don't want to commit troops for any kind of lofty goals like democracy. Of course, they never did. The only reason the French helped us in the Revolutionary war was because they wanted to see the British lose. It wasn't about democracy.
You said:
"Again, I'll ask you the two really salient questions:
1. Do you or do you not believe in a Constitutional right to privacy?
2. Why do you think President Bush didn't go to the FISA court in the first place?
These questions are at the crux of this discussion, I believe."
I say:
1. Define privacy. Here is an interesting bit: www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy
What it comes down to is the 4th amendment, which again does not mention 'privacy'. The term "unreasonable searches and seizures" is what is at the crux of this argument. And in my opinion, an automatic data-mining program is reasonable, since it is the most efficient and ensures the best privacy, since no one, and I mean NO ONE has the time to sort through all of the communications happening, except for a computer, which narrows the search significantly, at which time the information can be drawn forward, analyzed by humans, and used to (hopefully) get a court-ordered search for physical evidence. But this all comes down to what you define as reasonable. I think it is, I understand that you wouldn't.
2. Why do I think the Prez didn't go to the FISA courts? Because directly after 9-11 the Congress passed a vaguely written bill giving the Prez to use "all necessary and appropriate force" to fight terrorism. I believe his circle thought they had full authorization to bypass any and all safeguards to get the job done. They were and still are arrogant, but not imperialistic (no more than any previous president) or totalitarian.
A good commentary by Charles Krauthammer is in today's tribune. He states no president has ever followed the FISA rules.
I believe John Roberts, during the nomination process, stated that privacy, and specifically what it constituted, would be one of the most important issues of this century. Krauthammer's article also points out that there has been no legal distinction between electronic and physical searches. We are grappling with new technology and how to apply it to laws, some centuries old.
You said:
"I happen to know someone who lived through the Japanese internment camps - what would you like to know?"
I would like to know if they thought that was akin to 'profiling' and if they thought it was justified.
As to your final question, I'm twelve.
I've only got time to do your response justice on a couple points at the moment.
"I don't think the US had an exit strategy or a post-invasion plan when America entered WWII."
Actually, I'm certain that you've got that wrong. Consider, for example, the Marshall Plan.
We also had a post-invasion strategy during Desert Storm. Even I know that this is an essential component of any military endeavor.
"Europe has gone soft and selfish, they don't want to commit troops for any kind of lofty goals like democracy. "
yea...right. This war has absolutely nothing to do with "democracy," and it never has. I refer you to the stated goals of this little effort - the main one being the "disarming" of Saddam Hussein.
"Of course, they never did. The only reason the French helped us in the Revolutionary war was because they wanted to see the British lose. It wasn't about democracy. "
If what you say is true, and I'm not prepared to concede the point as yet, perhaps it's because they've got recent memory of having lost whjole generations fighting over idealogy. They're probably inclined to recognize the goal of "exporting democracy" as the fool's errand that it is. No one fights in other countries primarily for "democracy." If that were true we'd be in Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and we'd have invaded South Africa in the 70's or 80's, and so on.
"As to your final question, I'm twelve."
Made me laugh.
For reference on FISA and NSA:
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi
Says the article:
and then there's this nugget:
This pretty much tells the tale:
Again, define "unreasonable."
OK, how about lacking probable cause? Or perhaps you'd prefer to live in a society where the government just collects information on you until they find something you've done wrong.
The presumption of innocence dictates that you are insulated from prying eyes until and/or unless you give the powers-that-be probable cause to assume a crime has been committed.
what is public, what is private? Are the radio waves broadcast by a phone company through their satellites and towers private or public? Are libraries private or public? How can you be insulated when you operate in the open, in public? In most cases the idea of privacy, especially in the case of a public protest, is laughable. Its like some recent news stories about high school students putting private thoughts on a blog. When they got into trouble with their schools, they cried foul and said those thoughts were meant to be private. When you share thoughts in public forums or using other's property, they are no longer private.
"what is public, what is private? "
How 'bout I hang out in front of your place and open your mail? Better yet - got a girlfriend (or wife, or both)? How's 'bout I throw a polarizing filter on a long lens and have a look at her changing?
"Are the radio waves broadcast by a phone company through their satellites and towers private or public?"
There's a reason it's illegal in many states to record a telephone conversation without the other party's knowledge. Ever call the phone company for help? Why do you think they inform you that the call may be recorded?
The implications of your position are troubling in the extreme, because you seem to be saying that you have no right to privacy unless you live the life of someone like Ted Kazinsky. Yet I would submit quite strenuously that the inherent right to privacy, to be left alone, is central to the success of the modern Western community.
Without that guarantee we are reduced to paranoia and dissention.
"Its like some recent news stories about high school students putting private thoughts on a blog. "
Now you're kinda' jumping around, Sean - stay on target. Those kids published graphic descriptions of inflicting serious harm on another person - a teacher in this case - in the form of slitting his or her throat. I believe in the practice of law that's refered to as "actionable language," but a lawyer can tell us for sure.
The salient point here is that they published the information - they made it public.
"When they got into trouble with their schools, they cried foul and said those thoughts were meant to be private."
They may have thought that, but they were wrong. It's not private if you publicize it - notice the root of the word. You need to see the distinctions here, Sean. The fact that these children didn't understand the severity of their actions has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand here.
"When you share thoughts...using other's property, they are no longer private."
According to whom? You? The United States of America? You say that as if it's written law. Please help me out, because it's news to me.
How 'bout I hang out in front of your place and open your mail? Better yet - got a girlfriend (or wife, or both)? How's 'bout I throw a polarizing filter on a long lens and have a look at her changing?
You? No, unless you pay my bills. A government agent? Sure, anytime. So long as they shoot me in a soft light. Its the same with a company informing a caller they might be recorded...they have as many rights as you do. But the government has more rights than an individual or private company, and they always have had that. They had even more power before 1978.
(my previous analogy about using phone lines was not as clear as what I was trying to say).
Also, we're not discussing physical searches.....thats not what the news has been about. The problem is NSA has been recording communications electronically. I think it is reasonable to use the technology in this manner. It would be stupid not to. It would be like forgoing satellite imagery in lieu of a hand drawn map. The government is just trying to keep pace with technological developments.
I think the main question is, should the government electronically amass large amounts of data on the population, even when 99% of it is useless and involves innocent people?
I would say yes, but that is because I trust the government and prefer a strong, smart one, and I think this technique accomplishes this. I'm guessing that is our major difference.