Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
The moonbats are *livid* over this. They still think this entire problem is "telecom immunity" when the real issue has and always will be a FISA bill that has increasingly become inadequate with the advent of new technology, and the methods and means of policing that technology in a world where the harsh reality is that millions of people want us dead and will use any means necessary in order to kill us.
We must be ready, willing, and able to use any means necessary to stop them. As the President is so fond of saying, "All options are on the table."
This includes options that both Americans and the terrorists are not aware of and that's the way it should be...or should have been, until these options were outed to the world by the liberal press during a time of war.
Now we risk having the rest of these options revealed to everyone by the trial lawyers, while netting big sums of money suing our telecoms that were doing surveillance at the request of the US government.
The Dems will of course cave on this issue. They're losing on this issue in the minds of the voters. They know what the barrage of truth this fall will mean to their chances of ever being a viable political party in our country again.
America is different after 9/11. The Democrats are the same. They must adapt and change, or they will be rendered meaningless.
To me they are meaningless already until they grow up and start realizing the world we live in and stop stomping their feet like petulant children whenever something that protects our country is passed.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (most often attributed to Benjamin Franklin)
Violating the Constitution is the quickest path away from democratic freedom - and the fastest way to allow terrorists to destroy this nation.
Cheryl -
You speak the truth.
Peace...
To Lightwave,
This Moonbat is not livid on the issue of telecom immunity. On the contrary, I am sad and dismayed that our representatives in Congress seem so ready to give up our right to private communications. As a nation, we have lost sight of why the right to private communications found its way into our constitution. The basic reason is that governments cannot be trusted. But America has had so many years of good government, that we have lost sight of this fact.
So to protect ourselves from the millions of "Islamic Demons", we are quite willing to let our government and the telecoms get away with breaking the law (our constitution). This is how our great nation will become a police state. We the people are welcoming big brother with open arms, because we are completely unaware of the path we are being led down, and the ultimately dreadful price we will pay for acquiescing to the fear mongers.
And by the way, once we grant the telecoms immunity, we will never have private communications again. The thought police will have a field day.
Leo Loebs
Leo, considering that not one person has been able to offer any evidence that the telecoms and the onitoring of communications has harmed them in any way, goes to show your "sadness" and talking points are no more than that...talking points with no supporting evidence to back up those claims.
THAT is what is sad.
Evidence? You want proof of our individual correspondence being monitored? OK! Lets have it!
Lets not give the telecom companies and their lobbyist everything they ask for. How about holding them to the same laws you and I have to obey.
This is all about dollars. They do not want to have to defend illegal acts they performed under political pressure. Are we rewriting the US Constitution to suit the executive branch?
I, and many other citizens are growing very weary of the ever increasing use of "executive privilege". What would our founding fathers say about this? Think of what balance of power might mean to a democracy.
Excellent editorial - worth reading
Mukasey's Paradox
When you think about it, his manipulations are a beautiful, twisted thing.
By Jonathan Turley
March 4, 2008
The recent decisions of Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey to block any prosecution of Bush administration officials for contempt and to block any criminal investigation of torture led to a chorus of criticism. Many view the decisions as raw examples of political manipulation of the legal process and overt cronyism. I must confess that I was one of those crying foul until I suddenly realized that there was something profound, even beautiful, in Mukasey's action.
In his twisting of legal principles, the attorney general has succeeded in creating a perfect paradox. Under Mukasey's Paradox, lawyers cannot commit crimes when they act under the orders of a president -- and a president cannot commit a crime when he acts under advice of lawyers.
Such a perfect paradox is no easy task. Most attempts fall apart because of some element of logical consistency. The closest example to Mukasey's Paradox is the Grandfather Paradox: If you go back in time and kill your grandfather before he meets your grandmother, you would not be conceived and therefore you could not go back to kill your grandfather. That one can play real tricks with your head.
Mukasey's Paradox appears designed to play tricks with Congress. Its origins date back to Mukasey's confirmation hearings, when he first denied knowing what waterboarding was and then (when it was defined for him) refused to recognize it as torture. In fact, it is not only a crime under U.S. law, it is a well-defined war crime under international law.
The problem for Mukasey was that if he admitted waterboarding was a crime, then it was a crime that had been authorized by the president of the United States -- an admission that would trigger calls for both a criminal investigation and impeachment. Mukasey's confirmation was facing imminent defeat over his refusal to answer the question when Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) suddenly rescued him, guaranteeing that he would not have to answer it.
Once in office, Mukasey still had the nasty problem of a secret torture program that was now hiding in plain view. Asked to order a criminal investigation of the program, Mukasey refused. His rationale left many lawyers gasping: Any torture that occurred was done on the advice of counsel and therefore, while they may have been wrong, it could not have been a crime for CIA interrogators or, presumably, the president. If this sounds ludicrous, it is. Under that logic, any president can simply surround himself with extremist or collusive lawyers and instantly decriminalize any crime.
However, this is only half of Mukasey's Paradox. The other half occurred last week when Mukasey refused to allow contempt charges against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers to be given to a grand jury. Bolten and Miers stand accused of contempt in refusing to testify before Congress in its investigation of the firings of several U.S. attorneys in 2006. Mukasey wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that their refusal to testify could not be a crime because the president ordered them not to testify under executive privilege.
Under this logic, no official can be prosecuted for contempt as long as a president ordered them to commit the contempt -- even if the president's assertion of privilege is clearly invalid or incomplete. In this case, many experts have expressed skepticism that all or any of President Bush's assertions of privilege in this case would be upheld.
When Mukasey blocked the contempt cases, many legal experts were filled with rage. But I came to see his rationales as objects of beauty rather than scorn. When one combines the two decisions, they fit neatly into Mukasey's Paradox. Mukasey was saying that lawyers could not be charged criminally because the president ordered them to commit the act -- and that the president could not be charged criminally because lawyers told him he could do it.
Now some have pointed to other paradoxes in Mukasey's tenure. There is, for instance, the "paradox" that his confirmation was saved by Democrats -- who thereby allowed the president to avoid a confrontation on torture. There is the "paradox" of Mukasey insisting that courts should not investigate the Justice Department's failure to preserve the CIA torture tapes because the Justice Department should be allowed to investigate its own failure to previously investigate.
Yet these are not real paradoxes -- they're merely political ironies. A paradox is a statement that seems true but yields a contradiction or a dual truth. When reduced to its purest form, Mukasey's Paradox is that government officials cannot violate the law -- but that because executive privilege is also a law, it's sometimes necessary to violate the law in order to uphold the law.
Mukasey's Paradox will now join other paradoxes such as Zeno's Paradox. Indeed, members of Congress already use a variation of Zeno's Paradox to explain their lack of action on civil liberties, torture and Iraq. They seem to be always working toward "change" without actual change occurring. The answer is found in Zeno's Paradox: You will never reach Point B from Point A as you must always get halfway there, and half of the half, and half of that half, and so on.
Mukasey's Paradox, if adopted, will result in administration officials being effectively beyond the reach of the law. Yet there is always hope.
Consider that Mukasey took an oath under which he swore to uphold the laws of this country -- even if the violator is the president of the United States or his aides. That oath means that all laws must be upheld without exception. Except, according to his interpretation, that executive power is a form of constitutional law that creates exceptions to the enforcement of laws.
But there's something known as the Exception Paradox, which goes as follows: If there is an exception to every rule, then every rule must have at least one exception, including the rule that there must be an exception to every rule. Thus, perhaps this is a rule without exception, and the president cannot order criminal acts.
But that brings us back to Mukasey's Paradox. Even if there is no exception to the president ordering crimes, there is no crime because the president ordered it. Perfection.
Jonathan Turley is a professor of law at George Washington University.
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times
Hi Susan,
I'm glad that you replied. Perhaps we can explore each others viewpoints with civility and actually try to understand them.
Why does anyone need to show harm? My sadness is not because someone was harmed, but because we seem so ready to relinquish our right to private communications. This is a fundamental right that protects us against government encroachment in our private lives.
Perhaps you don't believe this is a bad thing?
No Leo, I feel the need to prevent mass murder on a massive scale is sometimes worth certain sacrifices if those sacrifices cannot be proven to harm anyone.
It is a fact that terrorists want to attack us. It is a fact that they already have. It is a fact that monitoring communications has led to the arrest of certain terrorist members.
It is also a fact that Silvestre Reyes, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has already said that after looking at evidence (which WE, you and I) are not privy to, he believes that a FISA amendments WITH telecom immunity will pass.
People need to stop with knee jerk reactions about "civil liberties" being taken, when no one can show that anybody's civil liberties has been taken away nor harmed, and start realizing it is our governments obligation and responsibility to protect us.
So yes, I firmly believe that since terror members have been caught using those tools and no one has shown where it has harmed any Americans, that the balance is on the side of protecting us.
Now, if any American CAN prove it will harm them or has harmed them, with facts and data and not just the "opinion", then perhaps I would come down on the other end of this fight.
Carol,
I argued with you, 7 years about how “pre-destiny” is not “fixed” and that “man-kind” is responsible for his/her and our destinies and you stated that pre-destiny is FIXED and SET. Well, after 7 years of “seeing” and “hearing” what people say and write on the World Wide Web, I must state one “thing” to you Carol; YOU ARE SO CORRECT. I was wrong! Pre-destiny is a SET “thing”. Now, why would I change my mind after 7 years? It’s a very easy answer; HOW CAN SUCH A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BE SO STUPID FOR SO LONG?
Reading most of these responses on this site Carol, PROVES that you are correct. Yes, Carol, “words” have become so meaningless. NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WHAT “THEY” WRITE. It’s so sad and of course, “THESE IDIOTS” will attack you or me with their meaningless words. I guess it gives them a sense of EXISTANCE.
It’s so SAD.
Hello again, Susan.
Let me paraphrase your last entry to see if I really understand you.
You are much more worried about very probable near term, life threatening harm via Islamic terrorists, than you are about potential far term loss of privacy in our communications.
Furthermore, no one has shown any harm due to having their communications monitored.
So the next question is do you see any problem with having all our email and phone conversations monitored by our government?
No.... let me make it a little clearer.
The probable terror threat is proven. The "opinion"
that giving telecoms immunity has not proven anything and there is nothing backing up any type of statement saying there is any threat to our civil liberties.
With that said, first I suggest you read the actual bill, I have and there is nothing in there which allows "all our email and phone conversations" to be monitored...THAT is the red herring that the far left keeps insisting on, yet never is able to find the exact portion of the bill that says that.
I would also go as far, to answer your last question to say... I will VOLUTEER my personal emails and phone conversations in a second flat if I believe that it will help save even ONE American life.
You find me the portion of the bill which says outright what YOU just phrased as "having all our email and phone conversations monitored by our government."
Then after you have found it... come on back and we will finish this conversation.
I will wait to see it.
Bruce---see all those little things in your comment that are not letters? THAT is because you are copying stuff from somewhere to use as your comment. DON'T do that....use your own words please because those little whatever they are, are annoying to look at.
Thank you in advance.
BRUCE---add to the conversation or don't bother commenting. We clear?--Spree
Edited By Siteowner
They are my own words. I recopied it from using Microsoft word. You should have realized that.
Thank you for the advice I will not recopy anything from word.
So you run around blogs copying the same comment to each? Spare me YOUR rhetoric and either address the posts themselves or don't expect to be commenting...CLEAR enough?
OK, Susan. I wasn't trying to minimize the danger. I should have said "the certainty of a near term terrorist attack that will end the life of many Americans".
I've read what you've written and am guessing that you are in favor of privacy rights. But you are willing to relinquish those rights if it will save lives. Am I correct? And for the record, if I knew that giving up ALL my private conversations would save one life, I would also give them up.
I am impressed that you have read the FISA bill and admit that I have not. Further, there is virtually no way that I can see myself reading it. For me the exact words in the bill aren't very important, because as best I can determine our government has already gone way beyond the bounds of what the original FISA law allows.
From my perspective granting immunity to the telecoms guarantees that the extent of their snooping will never see the light of day. The AT&T worker that blew the whistle on the government monitoring site says that they collected voluminous information not just a few phone calls.
I'm sorry, but I keep coming back to the vision of a police state where all our expressed thoughts are monitored. Kind of like what they did in East Germany before the wall came down and probably still do in Russia. That is the harmful future that bothers me.
I am impressed that you have read the FISA bill and admit that I have not. Further, there is virtually no way that I can see myself reading it. For me the exact words in the bill aren't very important, because as best I can determine our government has already gone way beyond the bounds of what the original FISA law allows.
Leo, I appreciate your level headedness and the discussion we are having, the only problem is the part I bolded above.
if you haven't read the bill, or the previous bill..how exactly have you "determined" that the government has already gone way beyond the bounds of what the original FISA law allows?
THIS is my point about not reading the actual bills...the only way to "determine" anything if one hasn't read the bills, is by what they see, hear or read, which is allowing someone elses interpretation to become your own. You are allowing someone else to think for you.
I am not sayin g this as an insult, but in MY mind, there are two options, either we read the data for ourselves and make our judgments or we allow others to make those judgments for us....IF I have missed an option..please feel free to add it because I am enjoying this conversation.
The fact is the old FISA bill, never... I repeat never address the technology of today because that technology didn't exist in 78'.
The newer bill that was passed with a 6 monht sunset, which has already expired, DID address the advanced technology where the phone systems now, from one country to another, even if neither party is in the United States, still gets routed through the United States.
When a bill and a set of rules is archaic and does not address the situation and technology of today, it needs to be updated.
Telecoms, to which those calls from a foreign country TO a foreign country are routed through are an important tool in being able to stay one step ahead of terrorists.
In my mind, after having read the boring, never ending amendments and bills (with the knowledge that certain information that the admin and Reyes are seeing is classified so I am not fully informed), these tools are not only necessary but are, indeed, key to keeping terrorists from attacking the U,S, again.
People use the "police state" to describe the FISA argument, and yet, never once has anyone adressed the question of showing anything IN the actual bill that comes near turning us into a police state.
they use that metaphor to scare people into knee jerk reactions about the bill without knowing what is IN the bill.
They do this publicly and they cannot provide any evidence but it doesn't seem to matter because they can scare people into only seeing those words "POLICE STATE".
Well Susan I am enjoying this conversation too. Hopefully, I will be able to see your perspective and you will see mine. We may never agree but if we at least understand each others viewpoint, then we are better off.
The thing to guard against is argument with the objective of proving we are right and the other is wrong. So with that in mind I want to ask a question and state a viewpoint regarding your last entry.
If I believed that our government would stick to the letter of the new FISA law, I would be much more interested in reading it thoroughly. Unfortunately, I don't believe that. I admit that my skepticism comes second hand from previously revealed information about government entities like the FBI spying on citizens and groups of citizens. So what is your take on this point? Can our government be trusted to obey the letter of the law? This is a pivital question and it may get to the heart of our FISA disagreement.
I do understand that the old FISA law doesn't address the new telecom technologies and I have no difficulties with updating it to incorporate these advances in communications.
Susan: Did you know that:
"The FBI record keeping system for the national security letters is in disarray and understated....more than 140,000 were issued from 2003 to 2005" (Inspector General of Info. Security Oversite Office in report to congress)
How many terrorist have been caught by all of this spying here at home?
Do you really feel safer than before 911 because of it?
We American want to trust our government, but the government must bear the burden of going to court if they are going to suppress a constitutional right for free speech.
Checks and balances enable that trust.
The government question is a good one, no matter which party takes the presidency in the 2008 elections, it would be the integrity of the person elected that would determine the answer to that.
Bush has taken liberties with the law, Clinton also admitted on public television that he ordered a hit and even though that hit was on Bin Laden (Chris Wallace interview), it went against the "letter of the law" and you know what?
I said GOOD for Clinton.
why?
Because sometimes every single aspect of every eventuality cannot or is not addressed in the laws when the time comes to make the decision to issue an order.
THATS the bottom line.
We vote candidates in and at some point we have to trust that decisions will come up that have to made IMMEDIATELY and they may not be addressed officially by law.
My view is, if that ends up being the case, do I want whoever is in charge to have the courage to give an order, or take the time which might cost lives to call in the lawyers because he or she is more worried about covering their ass than protecting the public as is their obligation?
It might surprise you to know I am a former democrat and my liberties mean the world to me, but I am realist, first and foremost, and I understand that laws are written to be followed but there are imminent threats that occur that can and should come before any piece of paper that might or might not address that specific threat.
The reason I encourage you to read those bills, as horribly boring as they are is I wanted you to read and use your judgment and not MY interpretation, the specific case in point, which you addressed as our emails and phone conversations, deals with calls made from or to America from a foreign country, especially a country with high terrorists activity.
In MY eyes, if I am calling ...lets just say, Iran, or Pakistan or any country rife with terrorist activity or terror groups, I WANT them to monitor it and I fully expect them to monitor anyone else calling those countries.
Does anyone dispute that calls between the 9-11 hijackers, between each other for orchestration purposes (timing and such) within OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL HERE, or calls from them to al-Qaeda, wouldn't have given us an edge to possibly alter those events?
Not definitely, but possibly?
It is truly sad to have to say it but continued threats, publicly made, via video, from al-Qaeda, make it clear that they still intend to attack us at the first opportunity.
I expect the leaders of my country to do everything within their power to stop those attacks.
"...It is the leaders of a country who determine the policy.....people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifist for lack of patriotism..."
Herman Goering, Hitlers Reich Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials.
Just because the blind refuse to see doesn't mean nothing is there.
Very good answer, Susan.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to answer before I leave for home, but when I get a chance I will respond.
Have a great night Leo.
Hello again Susan. Just got back from the gym and finished eating. So before I start on my writers group assignment I will respond to your much appreciated comments.
Apparently we both believe that our elected leaders have taken great liberties with the laws that define the legal limits of surveillance. In fact we could probably agree on many other areas where our government has completely over stepped legal boundaries. (Confessions of an Economic Hit Man springs to mind.)
Your point that it would be alright to monitor calls to terrorist prone countries seems reasonable. The problem is that terrorist calls can originate anywhere, any time, under any name. Terrorists will take that into account and manage to communicate without being detected. Unless our government monitors ALL calls and analyzes them carefully, terrorists will still communicate internationally without being detected.
So it seems to me that our government would have to monitor all calls - even those that are just inside the USA. Do I believe that if given the opening, the FBI, CIA, and NSA will do that and use the information in ways that have nothing to do with terrorist activities? Oh yes. In light of all the revelations over the past twenty years, I don't think that is cynical at all - just realistic.
This is where my big brother, police state paranoia comes from. Yes, I've read lots of novels and seen lots of pictures on this subject, but those are not the real foundation of this fear of government. It stems from the actual admitted activities of our government.
My fear of government surveillance also comes from the perception that power corrupts. To me that is a very well established principle of human behavior - perhaps it is one you agree with. Many examples come to mind. You can probably think of several yourself so I won't even start to list them.
As for preventing a major terrorist attack, I don't see how any amount of surveillance can prevent one. A smart terrorist already knows what our intelligence community monitors, so they won't be using those means of communication. A carefully planned attack wouldn't even require communication. An atomic or biological weapon could be smuggled into our country without much trouble. Container ships or trucking across the Mexican border provide a simple and nearly undetectable means of delivering such weapons. So from my point of view the only attacks we might prevent are those launched by rank amateurs.
To me terrorist attacks are now a fact of life that we have to live with. I see no benefit in giving up our privacy rights on the presumption that we can save human lives. By far the best defense is to infiltrate the terrorist organizations. I know that is not easy, but it is a proven and effective method that has been around a long time.
Do you remember the movie 'Brazil'? That is where I see us headed if we give in to the demand for Telecom immunity. Once we allow that, there will be no way to stop domestic spying on citizens. It will become a way of life and a very sad demise for our great country.
I think I've said it all. I await your reply with anticipation.
Leo, all the points you have made are valid and good. Where we disagree and probably will continue to disagree, albeit respectfully, is I DO believe that terror attacks can be altered and even prevented (evidence shows we HAVE already intercepted information that led to arrests) and I again am more than willing to openly have my information monitored, at will to prevent more.
To me it is as simple as that, if I am not planning some sort of nefarious activity, then why would I give a damn, to be blunt, what they heard or saw.
One life lost because our government doesn't have every single tool needed to do the job WE elect them to do, which is to keep us safe, and that is the fault of anybody getting in the way of them having those tools.
Look up the case in Germany where a terror attack was foiled recently, because the German authorities were able to monitor communications, they stopped an attack that would have killed thousands.
The London planes, yet another foiled attack that would have killed more than 9-11 did....have you ever asked yourself or researched HOW they foiled that attack....look it up, you don't need me to tell you, believing is doing the legwork yourself.
I can continue to show foiled attacks in the last 12 months...I believe there were 7 but I might be wrong, it might just be six, I would have to go over my file.....the point is, it took, government cooperation, internationally, it took those governments having the tools to do the job they were honored to be given which is protecting their country and the London attack, foiling that was cooperation between us and them.
This is just the information available, NOT even the information that Reyes and the rest are privy to that we are not.
Our safety continues to come second fiddle to political games, one of which is people claiming that "certain" tools means giving up our liberties, which after having read the bill, is not the truth of the matter...the politicians know this, yet they continue to play on the "police state" fear, to one up each other...it is US, the people, that will suffer when the next attack occurs.
I repeat, I will hand my personal communications over in a second flat if I think it would save one life.... why wouldn't I?
Only those with something to hide would really care when the choice is, let em look or risk lives.
To me it is a no brainer and I respect the fact that you disagree, but in my mind, whatever it takes, is what should be done.
As for the government taking advantage to use the information for other purposes... what exact purposes are you speaking of?
It still comes down to the question of, how can anything be used against anyone unless they are committing criminal acts?
See, I don't see the nuance here, I see either someone IS or is not committing crimes or planning one and those that are, SHOULD be caught and those that aren't, shouldn't have have any worries?
One last thought before I go get myself some sleep here.... There is no way to fully monitor communications without the help of telecoms and telecoms will not offer that help if they are subject to the massive lawsuits...hence telecom immunity.
Terrorism may be a fact of life, sadly, but that does not mean we should roll over and not try to stop them, if we were to have done that, all those foiled attacks would have been successful.
My question is how many more lives need to be lost before people wake up to the fact that there IS danger and we must protect ourselves?
Do you like living in fear? Is this part of your life?
You are suggesting that we 'do whatever it takes' to guarantee safety. There is no way to guarantee safety when generations in many countries are learning to hate us. There will always be a way to get around safeguards.
What other freedoms should we give up? Should our banks report any suspicious ATM purchases? What religion do you practice? Do you know any Muslims? Have you ever said anything suspicious on a cell phone? Are ALL your e-mails now being read by someone? Is this BLOG attracting NSA attention?
How about we learn to treat people as fellow humans instead? You and I have created this problem. We had NO threat from Iraq until we attacked them. Al Quada was a small group of radicals. Now they have many more members and influence in many more places. The world is what we have made it.
Have you ever left the USA? People in other countries do not understand why we allow our government to act as it has. If we spent as much effort on promoting peace and human well-being as we do on war and fighting, the world would be a better place, and we would not be 'the enemy' to so many.
Why don't we stop giving up our freedoms for questionable safety measures that serve to protect inept leaders and benefit corporate interest?
It is now corporations and lobbyist who determine what is done in Washington DC. Give up the faith based belief that our elected officials are looking out for our best interest.
Look who is talking about fear, at least what I fear is real and tangible, yours are nothing but hype from a person that hasn't even bothered to READ the bill to know what you are talking about. READ it before making more of an ass out of yourself S.
Living in fear and acknowledging REALITY are two different things and you are part of the problem the liberals have had for decades with the stigma if "weak on n ational security", because your inability to acknowledge that we live in a world where terrorism has existed FAR longer than just since 911, from Islamic Extremists, is nothing more than closing your eyes to reality.
here are the FACTS about terrorism from 1990 to 2001--- I don't even need to go back further to prove my point:
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree....-
terrorism.html
Take a look at how long Islamic extremism has existed and get your head out of your ass.
If you cannot acknowledge the danger as a party, then how do you ever expect to be trusted to protect us as a nation.
Uninformed opinions such as yours is nothing more than that....UNINFORMED.
Gottcha!
Good morning,Susan.
I feel like we are coming close to an understanding of our basic disagreement, which is what I hoped we could accomplish. Here are my thoughts on your previous two posts.
I agree that with good intel we can and have stopped some terrorist attacks. But so far the plots we have uncovered were mostly the work of what I would call amateur, home grown terrorists who leave a communication trail that can be followed or who belong to radical Islamic groups that European governments have been monitoring for some time.
When one of the real bad boys is let loose on us, he will probably succeed. No amount of internal or international surveillance will prevent his kind of attack. Security at our borders with Mexico and at our own container shipping ports is laughable. So we will not catch him when he smuggles in an atomic bomb or a chemical weapon.
In summary, while I believe that we can and will stop some attacks, the really devastating damage is not preventable by any communication surveillance, because a professional terrorist will be operating alone and won't be communicating with others. I know I'm beating this point to death, but I really want you to understand where I'm coming from. So now on to another aspect of our discussion.
We have both said that we would be willing to divulge the most intimate details of our private communications, if it would save even one life, and I believe we are both sincere in that regard. So you ask why I'm opposed to communications surveillance and to granting immunity to the telecoms.
You wrote:"As for the government taking advantage to use the information for other purposes... what exact purposes are you speaking of? It still comes down to the question of, how can anything be used against anyone unless they are committing criminal acts? See, I don't see the nuance here, I see either someone IS or is not committing crimes or planning one and those that are, SHOULD be caught and those that aren't, shouldn't have have any worries?"
You ask why would I care if the government were privy to my private communications, unless I had something illegal to hide? This question is at the core of our disagreement, so let me try to explain more fully.
What do you know about McCarthy's congressional inquisition - where he ruined many lives trying to ferret out the commies in our nation. That episode was mostly the work of one man. Now imagine the harm he could have done if all our phone conversations were available to him. It was never a crime to associate with communists, but McCarthy made it seem so.
That's just one simple example from our national past and it was mostly the work of a single person. There is nothing nuanced about governmental misuse of power. The issue was very real to our founding fathers. I'm sure you know that's why we have a constitution that specifically protects our personal right to speak our minds and maintain private communications.
Here is another scenario that's not too difficult to imagine. Suppose an Islamic terrorist poisons the drinking water of Los Angeles and 100,000 people die. In a panic to stop any further attacks our government decides to round up and imprison anyone who has expressed sympathy for an Islamic cause. If someone wrote an email about the plight of Arabs in the Gaza strip, or had a phone call where they expressed disagreement with Israel's incursion into Lebanon, they would be interned in one of many large 'camps' just like Japanese Americans when Pearl Harbor was attacked.
I believe the potential for government misuse of power is obvious and very real. I don't trust any government with the details of my personal life. Recent history abounds with examples of governments as dictatorial thought police. As I mentioned previously, East Germany and Russia spring to mind.
Let me touch on one other aspect of this situation. Yes lives are precious, but somewhere around 50,000 people die prematurely in traffic accidents every year. We don't outlaw cars or even get serious about reducing vehicle speeds. We accept those fatalities as the price of being alive in this world.
What I'm suggesting probably seems totally unacceptable to you. Why should we accept any loss of life due to terrorist? My answer is that I weigh the loss of lives against the loss of privacy and the likely misuse of intercepted phone calls and emails by our government.
On the subject of telecom immunity: I have written to my Congressional representatives and asked them to vote against telecom immunity. If they haven't broken any laws in divulging our phone calls and emails, they have nothing to worry about. On the other hand, if we grant this immunity, then nothing will stop them from handing over any records that our government requests in the future. In my humble opinion, and for reasons I hope are clear now, that would not be good.
Susan, I thank you sincerely for taking the time to communicate with me. For some reason, I feel better now that I have some understanding of where you are coming from and I hope it works in the other direction for you. We lefties aren't total dummies, we just have a different perspective.
Leo, you are an example of why I often separate moderate liberals from the far left unhinged.
One group, as you, can rationally think over a subject and whether I agree with your conclusions or not, I cannot accuse you of knee jerking and I don't.
A couple points of your previous post interested me:
When one of the real bad boys is let loose on us, he will probably succeed. No amount of internal or international surveillance will prevent his kind of attack. Security at our borders with Mexico and at our own container shipping ports is laughable. So we will not catch him when he smuggles in an atomic bomb or a chemical weapon.
I cannot agree with nor think that "probably" is a good enough reason to give up any tool.... there is just as much probability that we CAN stop one of the big boys.
It is a wash because neither of our opinions on that can be proven, but the fact that we have stopped major attacks on the basis of tools, including monitoring communications (The london airplane plot), evidences that stopping attacks directly depends on our ability to aka tools, to protect ourselves.
Your other point:
What do you know about McCarthy's congressional inquisition - where he ruined many lives trying to ferret out the commies in our nation. That episode was mostly the work of one man. Now imagine the harm he could have done if all our phone conversations were available to him. It was never a crime to associate with communists, but McCarthy made it seem so.
All of your points have been good, but that particular sentence, in my opinion, was the best point so far, but I disagree 100% with the portion I put in bold.
Many have said Hitler was one man that did horrible things and being Jewish, I have extensively studied that issue, and I maintain as strongly as possible that one man cannot do that type of damage without the complicity of other sick and twisted men.
Sure we have to watch what is done, but because of McCarthy, safeties are put into place so that "one man" and his merry band of conspirators cannot ever go that far again.
Let me touch on one other aspect of this situation. Yes lives are precious, but somewhere around 50,000 people die prematurely in traffic accidents every year. We don't outlaw cars or even get serious about reducing vehicle speeds. We accept those fatalities as the price of being alive in this world.
Cars are a neccessary part of life and accidents happen...a terrorists attack, in my mind cannot be compared to accidents...they are a deliberate attemopt to kill innocent Americans and it is our governments responsibility and obligation to stop them if at all possible.
See, I am not willing to assume "we will be attacked, and we must accept that", to me that is rolling over and telling the terrorists across the world, here is another method to use to attack them because they are too worried about a random phone call to be monitored than protecting themselves.
This is why I list phone numbers, emails, staff emails, and contacts regularly to our representatives and encourage every reader periodically to call, email, facx and write their reps to tell them to give the telecoms the immunity.
If politicians think the president is at any time overstepping with those communications...go after the government, NOT the telecoms that are trying to help keep our country safe.
I will continue to rally my readers to make sure the FISA amendments are passed with the immunity in place, then I will monitor how our government is using that information and make my voice and encourage my readers to make their voice heard IF I see it is being taken advantage of.
To me, the bottom line is and always will.... protecting our citizens with any and all tools needed to do so.
I am not going to worry about what "could" happen or what others tell me they "think" "might" happen... I am dealing with the facts as they are presented, not the what ifs.
I do appreciate your continued discussion to this, it shows that my separating moderate liberals from extremely far left liberals is correct as you are proof of the difference.
We won't agree, but as you said, we at least understand each others point of view.
Thanks for the awesome discussion.
BANNED---S.. You are an ass---Susan
Edited By Siteowner
Commenting by HaloScan
