Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Protect Your Freedom v. Freedom to "Protect"
One small win for sanity and true Democracy.
But a steep slope before we work our way free from Democrazy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warrantless_surveillance&printer=1
Judge nixes warrantless surveillance
By SARAH KARUSH, Associated Press Writer 5 minutes ago
A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.
The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.
But a steep slope before we work our way free from Democrazy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warrantless_surveillance&printer=1
Judge nixes warrantless surveillance
By SARAH KARUSH, Associated Press Writer 5 minutes ago
A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.
The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.
Comments
I agree, though. There should be some mechanism where certain judges can be given security clearance to review these matters "in camera." If they are valid secrets, then they can remain that way.
What I mean by that is... The recipe for Coca Cola is a trade secret. It is protected by the fact that only a very small minority knows what the recipe is. If someone was to come out and accuse Coca Cola of putting some "chemical X" into their product the only way to defend it would be by divulging the recipe. You can't go by purchase orders because they may use the "chemical X" in the plant for something other then the recipe.
By that same token, the wiretapping WAS a state secret until someone told and the press investigated. The remaining portions of the program ARE still states secrets BUT if they have to come out in a court case they will no longer be state secrets. This is similar to the theory that after we broke the German and Japanesse codes during World War 2 we did not counter every move of the enemy because then they would know their codes were broken.
As for this being a "freedom of speech" issue... Freedom of speech does not gaurantee you to the "freedom from consequences" of your speech. I think too many people equate "freedom of speech" with a blanket protection against retaliation for what they say.
We are living in a time of war and some things HAVE to be kept as state secrets.
An example of a HUGE state secret that was kept for years after World War 2 was the capture of the German spies that were dropped off by U-boats on the East Coast of the USA. Do you know how they caught them all? One of the guys defected and told the FBI where to find everyone else. The US government played it up (in the press) as if the American homeland was so impregnable that as soon as these spies landed they were caught. If the Germans were aware of the truth of the matter they would have sent more spies over but because they were given the story that they were caught right away they did not bother sending anymore...
Right now we are at war with a group of people that do not fight as armies have fought in the past. They infiltrate and work in small groups. They use our own communication networks to work their mischief. I'm not particuarly happy that if I say something in jest on my phone I may get a visit from the feds, nor do I like the idea of someone coming to my door asking why someone did a web search for strange pron things from my network but... I tend to belive that the government is full of enough people of various political beliefs that no major law breaking can occur without at least one person leaking it out.
So, how do we fight it?
Would we be negligent if we did not use all of the tools at our disposal?
Percentage wise yes, there are very few terrorists out there. BUT, it only takes a small number to cause damage.
Yes, we are far more likely to die in a car accident then die in a terrorist attack but... car accidents are seen as that "accidents" and fall under the "can not be avoided by prior planning" umbrella. Terrorist attacks fall under the "why didn't you see this coming" umbrella.
IF you lost several members of your family in a car accident would you blame the government? IF you lost several members of your family because a terrorist detonated a bomb in a pizzaria would you feel the same way?
Blame doesn't matter, like I said, but if terrorists killed my family you know who gets most of the blame? Terrorists get most of the blame. The rest of the blame does indeed go to the government, but not for failing to protect, or even for failing to see it coming. I blame the government for pissing off the terrorists in the first place. If our foreign policy wasn't so backwards then crazy people wouldn't want to blow us up as much.
Now, there are some crazy people who will try to kill you no matter what the foreign policy is. But if you ask me, I would rather risk being killed by those crazies, since the risk is low, than give up even a tiny amount of my civil liberties. It would be fine if people could choose based on personal preference how many rights they are willing to give up for their own security. Then timid people could give up all their rights, and I would give up none. The fact that the government forces the choice is a problem.
It's all about risk:reward and cost:benefit ratios. What is the risk of a terrorist attack? Is it worth the absolutely enormous cost to avert that relatively tiny risk? Let's make up some imaginary numbers. Let's say the risk of death by ninja is .1%. Someone says that for the cost of $1 they can decrease that risk to 0%. I'd pay a dollar. Now, let's say someone comes up and says that the risk of dinosaur bite is .0001% and that that risk can be avoided at the cost of a million dollars and the fifth amendment. I'd rather take the risk of dinosaur bite.
The problem with the way we are handling security in this country is that we are spending far too much time and too many resources to avert a relatively small risk. That time and resources could be used to save a larger total number of lives from bigger, easier to avert, risks. What makes it worse is that the security we are buying isn't even real security, it's an illusion of security. If the money went to hiring more police, building military defenses, properly educating people on how to protect themselves, etc., then it probably would not be a waste. Instead we spend money making each other feel safe from a very small risk while everything else in the world continues to kill us. At the bare minimum I want to be given the choice between liberty and safety rather than have the decision made for me.
Interestingly enough, taxes are much lower than they should be. Look at the deficit we are running! We need to either cut spending or raise taxes to balance the budget. Senator Lieberman, who is in favor of the war, just lost his primary. I'd say the opponents of the war are doing just fine. Some of these folks are no doubt opposed to the war because of its tremendous cost.
Look for instance at what happened when America decided to war against communism. It resulted in some of the more horrific and disgraceful conflicts in our nation's history, helped set the stage for some of the major conflicts of today, and was, for the most part, a failure. While the Soviet Union did eventually collapse (though IMO more due to the inherent flaws in the communist system than anything else) one of the largest communist states in the world, China, still remains a viable military and economic power. Let's not forget the loose handle that is North Korea either, a problem we're still coping with today.
A war against terrorism could easily produce the same sort of results, if not worse ones, given the virulence and tenacity of the ideologies that often give rise to it. As well the sheer omnipresence of terrorism in many corners of the globe can lay way to the dangerous possibility of the government using the war as reasoning for any number of future conflicts.
And let us not forget, we will not win it. George Bush has said so much himself (though he quickly recanted)
So instead of declaring war, and in turn use it as justification for the current imbalance in civil liberties, we can simply safe gaurd ourselves against terrorism as best we can while trying to peacefuly and diplomatically deal with the sort of social instability and violence that breeds terrorism.
The question is...
Do they want to become a trade nation or a military power? I cringe whenever something high-tech is made in China. I understand the idea that if you have a trade relationship with another country you are less likely to go to war with them but... That did not stop World War 1 from occuring...
The only way to fight terrorism is with education. you have to win the "hearts and minds" of the people who are now choosing to enter the terrorist groups. Much like stopping the next generation of gang bangers from joining the gang lifestyle.
At the same time, you have many countries in the middle east who give out cash to these "militia/terrorist" groups and use them as a proxy military to do the work they do not want directly linked to them. I'm still shocked Iran publicly said they support Hezbolah with money, training and weapons...
Who knows what creedance there was in it, but it was certainly a scary idea to contemplate.
A weak dollar does not help companies that manufacture abroad. That is one of the reasons the US kept pushing China to stop tying their currency to the dollar but to instead let it float and find it's own value.
A weak dollar helps home industry and hurts the multinational industries in our country. Why do you think so many foreign car companies now have auto plants in the USA???
As for your other point- increasingly, America is indeed becoming a country of multinational companies. As manual (and some semi-skilled) labor is becoming uncompetetively expensive within the US, and many likewise jobs are being outsourced to more (excuse me if it sounds a bit cold) cost-effective countries, our national trade deficit skyrockets. It isn't necessarily a bad thing to have a primarily outsourced and service based economy, except when the national currency starts to fall, hurting, as you said, companies that manufacture abroad, which is quickly becoming more and more the norm.
As for tourism, maybe we're stabbing ourselves in the foot with this TSA insanity. I might just as well opt out of coming to America if it meant avoiding that sort of mess.