Security v. Civil Liberties - How much domestic spying are you willing to "live with?"

If it was fully debated, and approved, by the Congress, I could "live with" a domestic surveillance program that allowed for a "blanket warrant" that required the Government to get judicial approval of any "search terms" to be fed into the big data-mining computers.

This would protect us by making sure that the Government was only data-mining for terrorist-related terms, and not to keep tabs on political opponents.

That computer could could be programmed to automatically draft, and generate, a request for an individual, particularized, warrant, that would HAVE TO be submitted to, and approved by, a Judge (based on a finding of "probable cause") before the Government could read any e-mail, or listen into any telephone conversation, identified by that "data mining" program.

The law could also allow for the issuance of a warrant 72 hours after the search, to satisfy the viewers of "24" who seem to be really, really concerned about a "ticking time bomb."

This seems like a good, "common sense" compromise that protects both our security and our civil liberties. I am interested in hearing people's thoughts on this.

Krash

about how the FBI was told to collect the total data of everybody that a spent a week or two in Las Vegas a couple of years ago, with no specific threat, they just wanted everything, no suspects or terrorists were caught from this fishing expedition.

No blanket warrants, ever.

The current incarnation of the PATRIOT Act approves only email header reads with a court warrant, and yet the NSA is already reading entire emails without any warrant at all. You want to give them more?

FISA already provides for retroactive issuance of warrants, and there is absolutely nothing which needs to be added to it. The idea that FISA is "out-of-date" runs parallel to GOP attacks on social security -- they are both power grabs in disguise.

"The current incarnation of the PATRIOT Act approves only email header reads with a court warrant, and yet the NSA is already reading entire emails without any warrant at all."

Don't get me wrong, I am a hugh opponent to the so-called "Patriot" Act, but, what you are pointing out is a "compliance" problem, not a problem with the Act, itself.

Krash

but assuming they will take liberties with whatever is deemed appropriate, why do you want to EXTEND the ability for the federal government to wiretap?

What is inadequate about what we have now? There is not one proponent of FISA "reform" (aka rewriting) who can answer that question without resorting to fearmongering and general hysteria.

I think my proposal is BETTER than what we had then, because I would not allow decisions to be made by secret, rubber-stamp, FISA judges.

A free, open, Judiciary is an essential check on out-of-control executive power.

Krash

of providing less security.

Confidentiality is important and is a critical aspect of the FISA judges' work. We can't allow the public to openly review these decisions because there is classified information. Does that open itself to abuse? You bet.

But the alternative, a blanket warrant for search terms (does that mean if I send an email with the term "nuclear device" I am then targeted?) would never work for the main reason that a plotter would be using coded terminology. And merely putting in place any kind of datamining makes it very simple for a small number of people to illegally accumulate a large amount of information.

There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

There is certainly a need to protect classified information, however, even the most difficult government decisions should, to the greatest extent possible, be made in public.

Certainly, the entire process, including the identity of the Judges does not need to be "classified," and the percentage of cases in which the Judges issue warrants does not need to be a "state secret."

Regarding data-mining "search terms" making a person "a target" - using those terms, alone, does not (in my opinion) raise to the level of "probable cause." Use of those terms might, however, cause the government to watch a person more closely - to see if they can build a case justifying a warrant based on probable cause.

And, you are right, there is noting to fear but fear itself . . . and I REFUSE to be AFRAID.

By none, I actually mean, well, NONE. I will accept no abridgment of my rights to privacy!

The government *should* fear us! If it is so afraid of me personally that it needs or feels compelled to single me out, then they can do it the constitutional way and go get the fucking warrant!

-Hoot

Having grown up in a generation where cameras weren't ubiquitous, where warrants had to be issued, where the Constitution was the law of the land instead of toilet paper, I find the notion of any sort of domestic spying abhorrent. Sadly, more and more people are growing up with their civil liberties increasingly restricted and infringed on, and really don't seem to care. The prevailing attitude is that if you're not doing something wrong, why worry. And as we get more and more of an acquiescent population, the more and more the government is going to take outrageous steps, push the limits, until we're all being watched, 24/7, and all those dystopia visions have come true. We're almost there now, sad to say.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to compromise anything away when it comes to the Constitution and my rights.

It would still allow the Justice Department or federal government to obtain access to and review attorney-client privileged communications. The Constitution grants defendants (not necessarily an American national or citizen) in criminal cases the right to the assistance of counsel. It is precisely the person who may be accused of terrible crimes who most needs to have a confidential relationship with an attorney. It is long established in our law that communications between a client and his or her attorney are confidential, and that, with a few exceptions, the attorney-client privilege is part and parcel of the right to assistance of counsel.

Data mining does not discern between attorney-client communications and other communications. So there is no way you can have blanket data-mining that complies with the U.S. Constitution.

In the scenario I am considering, the Judge (who would be a real judge, not a "rubber stamp" FISA judge) would consider, and respect, and protect, all privileges, including the "Attorney/Client privilege."

Except in the case of a true emergency, NO entity of the Federal Government, including the Justice Department, would be allowed to read, or listen in, to the communications, until the Judge found probable cause for them to do so.

As an additional element of my plan, I would add a "sunset" provision, requiring the Congress re-authorize the program every year.

Krash

And the American people get to replay the infamous "Agony of Defeat" part.

The FISA framework set up in the 1970s is sufficient as it is. If we really wanted to combat terrorism, then maybe we ought to examine our foreign policy for a long-term solution to the mess. Namely, stop bolstering US corporate interests abroad to the detriment of Americans back home. Defense contractors sell tons of weapons to third world dictatorships and in war zones all over the planet. Billions in profits are made. We've got to take the profit out of war; otherwise, our government will only continue to invade and assault third world countries.

I don't trust anonymous Judges issuing "rubber stamp" orders.

P.S. What is the ACLU's position on this?

address the route causes of terrorism, you will always be pressured to continue to sacrifice more liberties in the name of national security.

We have to address the root causes of terrorism.

Invading and occupying nations that posed no imminent threat to us, didn't help, either.

Krash

The principle of privacy is absolute - there are no exceptions or compromises.

No amount of data mining will prevent a terrorist act, given that anyone, at any time, could decide to commit one.

There is a reason Norway does not suffer terrorist attacks. Hint: it has to do with the fact Norway doesn't fuck with and fuck over other countries/peoples/religions/etc.

The "principle of privacy" is not an "absolute" right. There are NO absolute rights.

To the contrary, the Constitution is a social contract by which "We, the People" have agreed to give up our "absolute" freedoms "in order to form a more perfect Union." Remember?

There are even recognized, Constitutional, exceptions to each of the rights listed in the "Bill of Rights."

What I am talking about here, is a rational discussion, by our elected representatives, of whether, or not, the threat posed by international terrorism requires us to agree to a time-limited, carefully controlled, expansion of government authority.

In my mind, that type of open debate is far preferrable to the unprecedented, unlimited, power-grab that Congress has allowed to happen over the past 7 years.