I'd like to apologize for the tardiness of this entry. I've been a little busy with school, and it totally slipped my mind that it was my turn to write an article.
We all know the standard sides of the debate. One side cries "1984" while the other points to invisible terrorists that last attacked 
The president says that we aren't having our privacy infringed upon, because they're not trolling the general public, but just people who are suspect. Well, I'm not cynical enough to call him a liar, but I have to say that this kind of testimony is certainly not evidence either way. That is, if our privacy was being infringed upon, we'd expect him to say this just as much as if it wasn't. What I find intriguing about this, however, is that the government is now openly tapping phones (though not saying exactly whose phones get tapped, why, or when).
We'd be crazy to believe that the government hasn't been doing this stuff since the technology was available to listen in on the populous, most especially during the Red Scare. What we see now is that the government is coming forth with a bold admission of what they're doing. Simply enough, the question is "why come clean now?" Of course, I do admit that I don't have any real evidence to show you that the government has been listening in for decades, but I don't think it as unlikely as the alternative, but I do feel like one of two things is happening here: 1. The fed is trying not to risk getting caught secretly tapping phones. 2. They don't think there's any danger of a serious political backlash here.
The second alternative troubles me most. If it was more politically dangerous to admit to such doings when the fate of the whole world was at stake than when we are talking about the vague potential that some maniacs might repeat an attack similar to one that happened 5 years ago, it seems that the public has either become more complacent, ignorant, or impotent in the eyes of the fed. If that's the case, then it doesn't mean much anymore to be an American.
Branden Stein is an undergraduate in Philosophy and German at The Ohio State University. He can be contacted at Stein.179@osu.edu
8 Comments:
Good ole FDR was tapping into just about everything in the populous' life. I don't see a problem with it either.
With FDR or NSA/Bush whatever. Do what you got to do to keep us safe.
Delusions of Grandeur - I'm going to have to blow the BS bell on you here. The only reason you're saying that the intentions are different is because of your politics. I'm not sure that we're capable to judge the real motivations for the leaks. To speculate that one was for a good reason and the other was not is playing the "I'm a political hack" card.
The authority comes from Article II of the Constitution.
Carter did it, Clinton did it, Reagan did it-- Bush does it and everyone goes apes.
Jimmy Carter was president when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978-- that law, the FISA law, does not require that all such surveillance be authorized by a court. The law provides at least two special exceptions to the requirement of a court order. As FISA has been integrated into Title 50 of the US Code, chapter 36, subchapter 1, section 1802," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, one such provision is helpfully headed "electric surveillance authorization without a court order." That's the title of the law, electronic surveillance authorization without a court order. It's in the FISA law from 1978, Jimmy Carter was president, what more do I need to say? That should be enough. :P But if you need more let me know. heh. Not to act like a smart ass.
Also... research it... RFK & JFK wiretapped Martin Luther King, Jr. (In hopes of black mailing him.)
Delusions of Grandeur,
Could be or you want it to be? Sounds like you aren't seeing my point.
Remember when the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body? Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.
Why is it suddenly different for Bush? Please explain.
This was also sort of addressed to Shatnermosism for his desire to see other Presidents and their past actions that were similar.
Also, it has been pronounced legal. FISA court regulations specifically state you can do things without a warrant. I just see people reading na article from USA Today (the 10 million calls) story that is old. And is actually two different situations than the NSA program-- they seem to be falling pray to the heated partisan rhetoric out there. Delusions of Grandeur you obviously are partisan, so am I. It is healthy to be partisan and strong on a belief or issue...but to not research what is actually being done in this NSA program and fearing the neocons...heh- probably doesn't help.
I could say the same I guess. But you know that.
But I should know you and I can NEVER debate or discuss anything because of your unyielding convictions and partisanship-- which is not one sided--I also suffer from the same. But, hell, it's what keeps the country going I guess. Partisanship is good. It demands different ideas, convictions, and choices. You know where I am getting.
On the research thing... I think you can do that. Not too hard. :) Erich… just for your info…research the Clinton-Era "Echelon" and you may see a bit of where I was trying to come from. On the FISA act and Clinton situation, in the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary. Double standard?
I did read your post but it seems we both strayed from the point we were trying to prove/show. I was trying to simply point out that ALL Presidents since you and I have been alive and decades before back to FDR, hell back to Lincoln have done these type of things for National Security sake.
I like how you say, "there's no point in arguing with you". See that is where I see our biggest difference. You look for an argument or a point to argue, I look for debate (which may sometimes come off as arguing). I may not be all that great at it, I may also be a bit too partisan at time myself I admitted that earlier in this comment. So you know it, I know it... maybe you just shouldn't bother replying to my comments and I can do the same. I'll leave it up to the "stronger" bloggers to deal with you. :) Sound good?
For other readers…Erich and myself have a bit of a “past” on a message board. Just to feel you in. I didn’t get all this reaction from a few comments on a blog from him.
Post a Comment
<< Home