Rassmussen has released a poll that indicates that 64% of Americans support wiretaps on terror suspects even if they may be Americans:
Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.
Which seems like good news, but what about the fact that these intercepts are done without a warrant? It’s not clear from the free report how the question was worded – I’d imagine that would have some substantial impact on the results, although not necessarily by much.
It still seems clear that the near-hysteria of The New York Times and certain Congressional Democrats is not shared by the general public. While there’s nothing untoward or unreasonable about keeping a close watch on government, the fact remains that we are in a war that was begun by terrorists operating within the continental United States who committed an act of mass murder on American soil. Tying the hands our our intelligence services with the inefficiencies of the FISA Court doesn’t seem like a sound policy, and the Democratic position on this issue may play well with the Democratic base, but it will only continue to cement the Democrats as a party of weakness on national security issues – a reputation that has cost them politically in the past two elections.
All of this is smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that GW Bush and his cronies deliberately circumvented the law in tasking the NSA with wide-ranging wiretaps on ‘terror suspects’. There is a system for doing this, with legal oversight, in the FISA court.
Virtually all the legal scholars have said that Bush’s arguments that his actions were legal ring hollow. It’s also disturbing that even in the face of his shaky legal position, and the flat out moral repugnance of his actions, that he has stated clearly he plans to CONTINUE these illegal wiretaps.
The argument “All changed on 9/11” is false. Laws are still laws, and the president must function within the law. If he disagrees with the law, then he needs change it. He cannot simply ignore it and do what he wishes.
Although it surely appears the GW thinks he can.
What I find most laughable about Bush’s posturing is his continued argument “We need to act on a moments notice! We can’t wait for a court to authorize the tap!” … I simply stand mute in the face of this. The FISA act specifically states that government intelligence agencies can act IMMEDIATELY on time-sensitive surveillance issues, so long as they do bring the issue to the court in a timely fashion.
Lastly, Bush is very free with the phrase ‘terror suspects’. That term can apply to anyone, anywhere, anytime, with no oversight or restraint. “I think my neighbor may have talked to someone who might know someone in Al Quaeda.” That is sufficient information, according to the definitions bandied about by the administration, to place my neighbor and all his friends under surveillance, without oversight, without a court order, and with no guarantee of what that surveillance shall entail, what will happen with the information, and what shall come of it.
Is this the America you want to live in?
And that system doesn’t work. The 9/11 Commission said as much.
Which is your argument. And where did you get your legal education? The Constitution and the Courts have always given the Executive broad discretionary powers when it comes to gathering foreign intelligence. In fact, I find no legal or ethical “repugnance” about a program this program. I suspect that the real “repugnance” is on the part of those who disagree with the President rather than anything of substance – which is what we’ve all come to expect from the left these days.
If we don’t take the threat of terrorism seriously, people will die. The next attack could make 9/11 look like nothing. The first priority our policymakers need to consider is the safety of the American people. That’s why a majority of the American public have no problem with this program. It’s simply a valid exercise of the President’s Constitutional mandate as Commander in Chief.
It’s 72 hours. And if the suspect changes phone numbers, you need a new warrant. The FISA system is too slow, doesn’t take into account changes in technology, and requires surveillance to end after 72 hours unless the system can grant a warrant in that time – which the FBI itself has said never happens. The 9/11 Commission Report directly states that the FISA system is broken. FISA does not work in fighting the kind of enemy we’re fighting.
Wrong.
Unless your friend tends to make a lot of phone calls to Mohammad al-Terrorist in Peshawar, the chances of that happening are slim to none. Furthermore, there is oversight – the program has to be reauthorized every 45 days, and Congress was consulted on it in advance.
Yes. Compared to the laws in other countries, our national security laws are quite tame. The (misquoted) statement that you shouldn’t trade liberty for security is idiotic – that’s the whole point of civil government. This program has saved lives already. Most Americans aren’t willing to let thousands of people be killed so a group of partisans can claim a false sense of moral superiority. Our government is responsible for protecting the lives of its citizens, first and foremost, and this program is a valid way of achieving that end.
It’s like Patrick Henry said, “Who needs Liberty? I just don’t want to die.”
It’s quite a legacy the Bush administration has:
Admitting to breaking U.S. laws on wiretapping and ignoring the Constitution.
Invading a defenseless country and killing 30,000 of its citizens.
Embracing torture as a tool of warfare. Holding people prisoner for years without charges. Operating secret prisons in other countries.
And all this amidst high-flown rhetoric about “democracy” in Iraq. Yeah. Figure that one out.
But I don’t mind, I just want to find out what Angelina and Brad are up to.
It’s like the Democrats are saying: “What’s a few thousand lives for a false sense of moral superiority?”
The first may be questionable – but the second argument is pure BS. Nobody with half a clue is seriously arguing that the wiretaps are unconstitutional – the border search exemption applies, and if you’re talking to someone who’s a known member of al-Qaeda, you’d damn well better believe that constitutes probable cause. Again, we have two extreme straw man arguments.
And another straw man? The “defenseless” people in Iraq were the people under Saddam’s bootheel. Furthermore, how many Iraqis would have died in tyranny under the failing sanctions regime?
Yet again, we have the typical lefty boilerplate. C’mon, is that all you people have?
The question is simple: should members of al-Qaeda be treated under the Geneva Conventions despite their status as unlawful combatants? Arguing they should is an argument that legitimizes terrorist tactics. Again, what matters more, defeating an enemy that deliberately targets innocent civilians or playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules? The Democrats keep choosing the wrong position on these critical questions.
And we even get the scare quotes around democracy. How typical.
Given your argumentation skills, might I suggest starting with something easier?
Regurgitating the same old talking points does not an argument make.
“should members of al-Qaeda be treated under the Geneva Conventions despite their status as unlawful combatants?”
Yes. If the convention is to hold water, this kind of hair-splitting needs to end. If we don’t want to abide by the Geneva Conventions on the basis of “the terror threat being too ominous for traditional rules to apply,” then let’s publicly declare so. But it’s not gonna work to pick and choose which moments that we deem the Geneva Conventions applicable. Such “nuance” will be wasted on Arab governments if we try to have it both ways.
If one side categorically refuses to follow every single convention of warfare, should they be treated as lawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions when they are manifestly not?
The Geneva Conventions should only apply to groups that choose to reciprocate – and if the Conventions do as you argue (which they don’t), then they should be abandoned.
Furthermore, most Arab government don’t give two shits whether we follow the Geneva Conventions or not…
The protections of the Geneva Conventions, if you’ll read them, apply to all human beings; inhumane treatment cannot be used by any signatory to the Conventions no matter the status of the detained persons, or their nation’s status as signatory or not.
Moreover, determination of “unlawful combatant” can only be done by a military tribunal, not by personnel in the field.
Just as the laws still apply to the cops who chase down criminals (who themselves are acting unlawfully), the Geneva Conventions are not contingent on our enemies being signatories. Nor does “illegal combatant” status remove a person from the protection from inhumane treatment outlined in the Conventions. Of course, it’s a specious argument in the first place – our government is torturing people to death who were never combatants of any kind.
Last but not least – it’s highly disingenuous of you to talk about being bound by the “inefficiencies of the FISA court” when FISA itself allows the executive branch to tap without warrants for up to three days. You’re telling me that the Bush Administration was so busy, had so little extra help that they couldn’t send a staffer over for tap authorization sometime within three days? Please.