Civil Liberties, National Security, And Presidential Powers
All emphases in this blog article are those of Always On Watch.
As the headlines "Renewal of Patriot Act Is Blocked in Senate" and "On Hill, Anger and Calls for Hearings Greet News of Stateside Surveillance" appear in the December 17, 2005 edition of the Washington Post, a perhaps lesser known, December 16, 2005 story has also appeared on the Internet:
"...The order Bush signed in 2002 has allowed the agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States, the report said.
"Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, a central Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaida by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge.
"A federal judge in Virginia sentenced Faris in October 2003 to 15 years in prison for aiding and abetting terrorism, plus five years for conspiracy.
"Faris’ ex-wife, Geneva Bowling of Columbus, said Friday morning that she hadn’t heard about the NSA program but said it sounded appropriate if it helps catch terrorists.
“'If you’re asking me if that’s fair, I think it is, because they don’t play fair. They don’t do anything fair. It’s not in their vocabulary,' she said.
"Bowling said she has assumed since before Faris’ arrest that federal agents had tapped her phone, and she didn’t mind.
“'Anything they need to do to correct this problem is justified,' she said...."
Already, President Bush has made a statement about the surveillance in his weekly radio address:
"As President, I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I have no greater responsibility than to protect our people, our freedom, and our way of life. On September the 11th, 2001, our freedom and way of life came under attack by brutal enemies who killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. We're fighting these enemies across the world. Yet in this first war of the 21st century, one of the most critical battlefronts is the home front. And since September the 11th, we've been on the offensive against the terrorists plotting within our borders....What is the correct balance between civil liberties and national security? I expect that over the next several months we'll be hearing a lot about this issue. And if--God forbid--we endure another attack such as that of 9/11, will debating that balance be worth the price of human lives? If only foresight were as reliable as hindsight!
"The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad....
"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States."
posted by Always On Watch @ 12/17/2005 12:46:00 PM
39 comments
39 Comments:
Consider this a trackback.
Life Vs. Liberty
hundreds, perhaps thousands affected
A little math, 250 million Americans, 2,500 investigated (to be generous) -- that means a 1 in 100,000 chance of being affected, probably even smaller. Not a bad balance thus far in my estimation...
Somebody allowed your enemies in.
Now your own constitution protects your enemies.
You have a choice: follow blindly the law or break it to protect the rest of your citizens.
Bush signed and therefore authorized breaking the law.
Well, he put his arse on line.
Now it's up to the general US public to decide what to do with him.
Had he waited for an ammendment (or whatever) the Brooklyn Bridge would be in our sweet memories only.
Question 1
Why do we insist that our laws must apply to our enemies who want to destroy these laws anyway?
Qustion 2
Were all our laws put into place to defend our freedom or were they put into place so we must defend their existence although they became irrellevant?
I doubt there will be an investigation. The NSA did not monitor calls made inside the USA, rather it was international calls made to suspicious characters OUTSIDE the USA. God knows with all the Islamofascist mosques paid for by Wahabi interests from Saudi Arabia there could and should have been monitoring inside the nation. The rules are different in war. We cannot allow a hostile entity to hide behind the rights and liberties awarded Americans when there is war. That is just plain ridiculous.
Theway2k said...
I doubt there will be an investigation.
I wish you were right but the Democratic Party is not going to let this matter go away easily. Even Republican Arlen Specter has called for an investigation. Next week should be very illuminating.
Bush needs to take his case directly to the people.
"If you’re asking me if that’s fair, I think it is, because they don’t play fair."
Sounds fair to me.
Wake-up..Worlds greatestthreat is Iranln
You asked me about Alaska maybe being a reference to nuclear winter..I honestly didn't think of it that way but you my very well be correct.
Good Insight
Hold on critics of Bush. All international call never were protected according to Mark Levin.
Levin knows plenty about this area
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A.O.W.: Thanks for keeping on top of this important story. It's clear from the timing of this serious national security leak that it is intended to draw positive support away from the President's strategy for VICTORY in Iraq that was so clearly validated by this week's election.
So we are using the full powers of the National Security Agency to monitor the contacts of Al Queda in this country with congressional notification and oversight by multiple agencies?
And this is bad how?
How would New Yorker's feel if the Brooklyn Bridge, that great symbol, was destroyed along with countless American lives?
Would the survivors be comforted by the fact that the man in Columbus who was plotting such a thing had his civil rights protected?
Civil Liberties were NEVER meant to protect those who would deprive others of theirs. That is a fundamental underlying principle of our freedom and liberty.
Seems like there is more interest in refuting creation than whether or not national security should trump personal privacy (or not).
The whole notion seems a bit premature in that the monitoring orders were signed by the president after a review by his legal advisors and the AG assured him he was within the law (that includes the constitution, I think).
As for your original query, I for one expect my government to take whatever measures are necessary to protect me whether it is a Republican or Democrat WH. I also expect my government to respect my freedom from unlawful search and siezure (those two are linked) where it is determined I am not an enemy of state. In other words, if in the pursuit of an enemy who may have crossed my path so as to cause me to be reviewed (spied upon, if you like), once I am found to be harmless, then I expect my information to be dumped, purged, deleted, etc., - not retained for big brother purposes. In these days of people wanting to murder my fellow citizens (and me) because we do not bow to their god demands extraordinary measures to indentify them. Being the "open" society that we are, it was without effort that the terrorists were able to pull off 9-11. I don't want that to happen again; and if that means profiling and covert monitoring, then so be it.
There is no reason for law abiding citizens to be fearful of a big brother syndrom other than to give credence to conspiracy theories and to be an obstruction to the in-power administration.
As for evolution being proven by DNA, I have these words. Your wrongheadedness does not warrant me changing my understanding of the creation of this world and its species.
Merry Christmas.
Great post AOW!
Two thoughts...
To the chicken littles who see our freedoms eroding no matter what the president does may I remind you that civil liberties have shrunk during every war we've fought. They snapped back just fine afterwards every single time.
Second, as Tom Clancy put it so well...The contituition is not a suicide pact.
thanks again AOW
GREAT post, as always, AOW.
,
Totally agree with what Felis said and I loved the Tom Clancy quote. Our enemies are using our freedoms against us. And the left is tripping all over themselves to strangle us with it.
Lots of comments here for me to read, but I just got home from my piano students' Christmas recital. I'm exhausted! I'll check back tomorrow.
Wow. I see it's a little off subject in here AOW. I wanted to comment on the president's speech. I thought he took the right approach, admitting mistakes but keeping Iraq at the forefront and telling the American people of to be patient and not turn back.
I can understand people not believing in evolution, if that's what they choose but I don't understand why people still believe that evolution implies that man evolved from monkeys. Maybe their mind is closed to other possibilities. Even St. Thomas Aquinas stated that God created the universe to operate according to reliable observable laws. Mitochondrial DNA has shown that anatomically modern man has existed for almost 200,000 years.
I read somewhere that if the Bible was traced backwards, tracing lifelines back to Adam and Eve, that the earth would be approximately 5000-6000 years old.
Christian mathematicians and astronomers knew their investigations would lead to knowledge of truth because they believed that God had established the universe according to laws that could be ascertained.
This is why Judeo-Christianity flourished and Islam didn't. Well hopefully I won't be condemned like camerinus for having a difference of opinion.
I think I am confused.
Tell you what AOW.
It must be my age.
Felis,
It's not your age. Some of this discussion about creationism (aka intelligent design) and evulution was going on at the previous articl, too. I still haven't throoughly read all the previous comments on that topic, but will get that done later today--after I wake up.
Crusader,
Did you find the President's speech last night a different kind of speech? His mannerisms and style of delivery seemed different to me. Not exactly a fireside chat, but something akin to it--a firm but friendly approach. My guess is that a lot rehearsal and coaching went into GWB's speech last night. Did I detect a sort of Reagan touch there?
Mitochondrial DNA has shown that anatomically modern man has existed for almost 200,000 years.
I read somewhere that if the Bible was traced backwards, tracing lifelines back to Adam and Eve, that the earth would be approximately 5000-6000 years old.
I've heard both of those points, of course. As I've said before, I tend not to worry about such things because I'm not of science bent. Faith is faith (God's domain), and science is science (man's attempt to understand God's domain), so I don't intermix the two in my own belief system. Those genealogies in the Bible are present to show the lineage of Jesus the Saviour--not to be a science text.
Furthermore, while the issue of how the universe came to be is an important topic, salvation is based on faith in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ and NOT dependent on any finer point. In this life, all of man's questions aren't answered (We see "through a glass, darkly"), but later they will be. God and His laws are perfect; man's understanding of those laws--an admirable pursuit--is imperfect. A Creator God who is perfect and constant implies a caring God; evolution, a theory which undergoes revision as more discoveries are made, casts us onto the sea of chance; that last is my biggest problem with evolution, but I know many Christians who have reconciled that conflict in their own minds. I just leave the matter to God--trust, you know. What little I know of science doesn't undermine that trust.
Perhaps my view on intelligent design vs. evolution is simplistic, but there you have it.
Nuke Iran,
I read The Shining during a blizzard. I didn't plan to make the read any spookier that is already was. At the time, it just so happened that the book was the only unread paperback in the house, and I didn't know the book's theme and setting in advance. Was The Shining the scariest book I've ever read? As far as fiction goes, I think so.
I have two other Stephen King favorites: The Green Mile and Dreamcatcher. Mile translated very well to the big screen and had a good cast too.
Nuke Iran,
Little addendum here...King's book On Writing is an outstanding work and is used in some college classrooms as a text to teach creative writing. I love that book!
The Way 2K,
I doubt there will be an investigation. The NSA did not monitor calls made inside the USA, rather it was international calls made to suspicious characters OUTSIDE the USA.
I think there will indeed be an investigation--partisan politics won't allow for anything else. But if the investigation bears out the "outsideness" aspect, no further steps will be taken.
God knows with all the Islamofascist mosques paid for by Wahabi interests from Saudi Arabia there could and should have been monitoring inside the nation.
This matter has recently been before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The rules are different in war. We cannot allow a hostile entity to hide behind the rights and liberties awarded Americans when there is war.
I agree! A Fifth Column in our midst must be dealt with.
Camerinus,
This isn't going to go away anytime soon.
And could be a devastating distration, too.
Samwich:
"Arlen Sphincter is a RINO and one of the worst sellouts in the Senate. He's playing to his voter base, hoping when he retires his son will win his Senate seat."
Who exactly does Arlen Specter owe his alligence to? The people who voted him into office, or the Party before his name? I was under the impression that elected officials were representitives of the people. Not voted in party hacks that are responsible for advancing an agenda.
Now, as the suspect's wife who was quoted in this post: "“'Anything they need to do to correct this problem is justified,' she said....""
She is just trying to save face and look like she is uber-patriotic even though her husband was an enemy of the state. But, she is quoting exactly what government toads would like us all to feel. While extreme measures in extreme circumstances may be necissary, we cannot fail to notice that this is an extreme violation of our civil liberties and the principles that we hold fundemenatal as Americans.
I dont care how much "danger" the nation is in. We cannot begin to calmly accept the eroded rights that would be handed down to us for the sake of protecting freedom. This mentality is like protecting your money by locking it in a safe forever. Sure, it's protected, but you never get to use it. The gun control crowd would suggest that the high rate of gun crime (which to date has caused more deaths than terrorism in America) is a national crisis. Yet how many conservatives readily jump up to defend their constitutional right in the face of that aggression upon there civil liberties? Suddenly though, a Republican president tells you that terrorism is so dangerous, that he needs to circumvent that whole thing about "unreasonable search and seizures" under the fourth amendment, and that becauase he is fighting terrorists, protecting your freedoms, and vexing evil... you should swallow it down with a smile.
I for one say no. Even if the measures are neccissary for the VERY short term, we still have a civic duty to balk about it and fight the ability of government to make permanent those powers that would restrict our ability to live out the "American Dream". If this should be allowed with no arguement, where exactly is the line to be drawn then? Where exactly do you say "too much"? At what point does the government's impression that you are a "danger" become too oppressive? If you allow the an inch.... they will take a mile.
Typo! "distraction"
Jake,
civil liberties have shrunk during every war we've fought.
True enough!
Mussolini,
The NSA was exposed in a book in 1982...
Do you happen to recall the title?
Yes, we are at war, and that's why the Patriot Act was passed in the first place. Those months after 9/11 were a time of great apprehenson, and risking another such attack was--and still is--unacceptable.
Civil Truth,
Others would cite the principles involved, as opposed to the percentage you mentioned. But your numbars do address the issue of balance.
Bozwell,
There is nothing fair about this enemy. 9/11 and other attacks prove that aspect.
G,
If this should be allowed with no arguement, where exactly is the line to be drawn then? Where exactly do you say "too much"? At what point does the government's impression that you are a "danger" become too oppressive? If you allow the an inch.... they will take a mile.
I think we can expect some argument--that is the way of politics. Now, are those politicians really concerned about preserving civil liberties, or are they more concerned about their careers and playing to the public?
Dictators can arise because citizens want protection. Therein lies the danger.
BUT if some of the Constitution experts I've been hearing are correct, particularly with regard to monitoring calls to known Al-Qaeda members, the President used his powers in a legal manner. Of course, so did FDR's administration when those internment camps were created.
I wouldn't say that I, personally, subscribe to Suddenly though, a Republican president tells you that terrorism is so dangerous, that he needs to circumvent that whole thing about "unreasonable search and seizures" under the fourth amendment, and that becauase he is fighting terrorists, protecting your freedoms, and vexing evil... you should swallow it down with a smile.
As to the ex-wife you mentioned, she may or may not be an uber-patriot. I do suspect, however, that she's very angry about what her husband was up to.
Although I'm putting up another blog article in just a few minutes, I will come back to the comments section here at this article.
--AOW
About that surveillance...
From an article by Dr. Walid Phares @ http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20604 :
"Use their systems, passports, citizenship, laws, traditions, books and media, create internal divisions among them, and inflict defeat on the kuffars [infidels], for in the current balance of power, all we need to do is to use their weaknesses as our strength." – Abul ala’, comment posted in the Al-Ansar chat room, September 2005.
But America’s political debate is happening on a different planet: it’s about L.A. Law, finding scandals, and who can get a story out; regardless of reflecting on what we'll need to do to win the War on Terror. The new "story" was given a title before it is investigated...
Al-Qaeda knew it was under surveillance in America, but it didn’t know much about that system. Soon, it will know and will use this knowledge to its advantage. While some among us are rotating their pre-9/11 planet back in time, future jihad is railing against another of its enemies' fatal weaknesses.
Dr. Phares, who is fluent in Arabic and frequents terrorists' chat rooms, also discusses some of the legal aspects. The article he's written is worth reading and worth considering.
Beak: Hold on critics of Bush. All international call never were protected according to Mark Levin.
Levin knows plenty about this area
You might want to read that article I just cited as that article makes some excellent points.
Nuke Iran,
On the topic of sources of alternative energy sources...
I heard that waste in our various municipal dumps can be converted into gasoline. This conversion wasn't cost effective until the price of oil took its recent hike.
We truly need an energy source other than Middle Eastern oil!
Old Soldier,
There is no reason for law abiding citizens to be fearful of a big brother syndrom other than to give credence to conspiracy theories and to be an obstruction to the in-power administration.
But does the slippery-slope argument have any merit?
As for evolution being proven by DNA, I have these words. Your wrongheadedness does not warrant me changing my understanding of the creation of this world and its species.
You'll find my similar viewpoint in one of my earlier comments here.
And, Old Soldier, Merry Christmas!
Mike,
I, too, have a problem with the timing of this security leak about NSA. So much manipulation of such leaks goes on, IMO.
Civil Liberties were NEVER meant to protect those who would deprive others of theirs. That is a fundamental underlying principle of our freedom and liberty.
The balance to which I referred in my commentary?
Camerinus,
Thank you for pointing out the origin of your chosen name.
AOW..I respect your site will not bring the subject up again. From now on, I will not discuss evolution.
I don't take the discussion of evolution as any lack of respect.
I don't want to upset the thought police.
Thought police here? Hmmm...
Christian dogma is no different than Muslim dogma.
The my-way-or-the-highway portion is the same, but other dogmas in the two are quite different, as well as the enforcement of the dogma.
Western society has always condoned freedom of thought and the pursuit of knowledge, wherever it might take us.
Some might argue that such pursuit is dangerous. I've never felt so, but the what we call "knowledge" one day may morph into error on another day. Human interpretation of knowledge isn't perfect.
And, Camerinus, come back any time!
Samwich,
I saw that report. Here "it" comes!
Samwich,
We are funding terrorism by buying arab oil.
Yes!!!
The M-16 7th in reliability test??
Is that still true?
USCG trained with the M-16's but on most boardings we used either a 45 or a 12 guage.
Post a Comment
<< Home