A counterpoint argument worth reading...
The Myth of the Transparent Society
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Factors
Posts
The Fans
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(123)
-
▼
March
(15)
- Of laws and surveillance
- Deterrence the Third
- Deterrence II
- Deterrence?
- Code Violations...
- War is hell
- Death and Taxes...
- Rule Number One Of Pillow Fight Club...
- Sacrifice
- Politics of everything but the point
- Disparity of Powers – Redux
- Disparity of Powers
- Someone I wish I had known
- The Economy, Politics, and Ohio
- Liveblogging “Super Tuesday II”
-
▼
March
(15)
10 comments:
Some good points, but...
A direct rebuttal by the author.
Posted on behalf of chris j pluger whose school does not believe in internet neutrality for its employees.
From Denny's "Worldview" Post:
"we must empower those who are protecting us to be able to do so with the greatest effectiveness and success.
This need focuses directly on the need for our intelligence agencies to have access to the warrantless wiretapping and FISA court tools that Congress has failed to provide them. Without the tools provided by the FISA, our intelligence agencies will not be able to continue to stop the very kinds of attacks we can now see that they are successfully stopping."
I'm confused: if Congress has denied our intelligence community the tools they need, how have they been so successful in stopping these attempted terrorist attacks? Doesn't the very success of their efforts suggest that these additional, warrantless tools are NOT necessary?
The logic of your argument only appears flawed, of course, because you were unwilling to tell the whole story to your readers -- that, in fact, the government has been using the tools asked for ILLEGALLY. When we actually state that fact, your argument begins to make sense.
Of course, your conclusion -- that we must empower our government to act in this way -- is completely incorrect, if for no other reason than that they have clearly shown that they do not require our consent to empower them since they have already empowered themselves to take these action regardless of the current illegality of them.
The tools in the now expired FISA included warrantless wiretapping as well as the FISA court. Both of these provisions were previously used to stop attacks. Because of the expiration of the law, neither of them now exist to be used to prevent future attacks.
I agree that the current debate is about the legality of the application of the previously available powers--again FISA allowed for warrantless wiretapping under certain circumstances and has since the 1970s--however I will not concede that the actions taken by the Bush administration were illegal.
As it stands now, your own critique is flawed because the expired FISA law ended both warrantless wiretaps, which you question, and the FISA court, which you do not. As a result, our intelligence agencies have no tools to prevent future attacks, and will not have them for a desperately long time at the rate the political argument is raging.
Let's get our facts straight: FISA has not and will not expire. FISA was passed in 1978 and has been updated numerous times since then. One of those updates, the Protect America Act, was passed in August 2007 and given a sunset provision of 180 days. That is what has expired.
The expiration of the Protect America Act does not -- repeat, does NOT -- leave us with "no tools to prevent future attacks." This statement is, among other things, completely false. (By the way Denny, the fact that this inaccuracy has been rampant in the media is a perfect example of how the press has merely parroted the White House's talking points on a subject without doing any substantive research of their own to varify facts.)
Further, I would suggest that if the Bush Administration did nothing illegal there would be no reason for the current Senate bill to include immunity for the telecoms. After all, if the administration was acting legally, then there really isn't any way that the telecoms' compliance with the government's requests could have been illegal. Yet, this is precisely the sticking point upon which the Bush Administration insists -- that telecom immunity be part of the forthcoming bill.
Yet further, we should be clear that the PAA could still be in force, but that the President refused the House's offer of a 30-day extension so they could debate and craft their bill. The President, not Congress, is responsible for letting the PAA lapse and it is the President, among others, who is insisting that these are critical tools. So ask yourself why the President would allow such necessary tools to expire. If these tools are as critical as everyone in the administration is claiming, wouldn't it be irresponsible of the President to let them lapse merely so he could play political games with the issue?
I am not, in fact, all that comfortable with the secret FISA court. However, what is currently being proposed is yet another erosion of checks and balances. I don't care if you concede that the Bush Administration acted illegally. I do care whether the public will be allowed to find out in an actual court of law. This is what I believe the telecom amnesty issue is all about -- not allowing information to become public that would shine a light on illegal activity by either the telecoms, the government, or both.
David, you are correct that I inaccurately state that the FISA court has been allowed to expire, which is my own fault for not checking more deeply about the facts of the issue. Nevertheless, the provisions that have been allowed to expire to hamper the intelligence agencies' ability to conduct surveillance against enemies that are actively acting against us. In this case, if Congress will not pass a bill the President will sign and cannot override a veto, then Congress had better figure out some way to ensure that our intelligence agencies can do their jobs in the meantime.
So let's examine where we stand: You completely oppose warrantless wiretapping to gain intelligence on our enemies. You do not like the FISA court. What tools would you allow our intelligence agencies to have to pursue enemies we know for a fact (again I am referencing the dozen or so know cases of foreign operatives captured in the United States since 9-11) are operating within our borders, collaborating with other who may be American citizens, and are acting to cause Americans harm?
I have said from the very beginning of this debate that I do not believe that warrantless wiretapping or even the FISA court is the best way to collect intelligence, but we are very far from having the best ways available and we cannot stand idly by and allow our enemies to operate with impunity to protect an ephemeral concept that has not been proven to have been compromised. This is not some reactionary rhetoric or blind adherence to someone's talking points, but a pragmatic acceptance of the state of affairs as the exist. Whether or not we are in a "Long War" against our enemies or not, there are enemies right here, right now acting to do us harm and we are not acting to the fullest extent to stop them.
That reason, and only that reason, is why I am willing to grant any administration what some might consider to be extraordinary powers to defend us. If we have done as much as we could and our enemies succeed, then it is the nature of war. If we have done less and our enemies succeed, it can be explained no other way than that it was our own fault for not defending ourselves. That is the lesson of Khobar Towers, the African embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, and 9-11.
Therefore I ask again: if we are going to take these tools away from our intelligence agencies, what are we going to give them to enable them to do the job we are asking them to do?
As an aside, how did it become the state of affairs that, if one happens to agree with certain aspects of a particular elected official's policies, one automatically becomes an apologist for that official.
Certainly, I agree with some aspects of the Bush administration's approach to the issue of defending America against fundamentalist Islamic fascism, however I have not nor will I ever agree with everything.
As an example, yes I do support warrantless wiretapping of foreign operatives in the United States because our intelligence agencies say that it is an effective tool for identifying and acting against those operatives. If it were not for the fact that the intelligence agencies can demonstrate the success of their claims, I too would oppose warrantless wiretapping as an excess.
On the other hand, I completely disagree with the administration's view that any information in the wider conflict must be classified and reviewed before it is released to the public. In fact, I believe that one of the reasons that public opinion turned so fully against Iraq is because of the administration's policy of withholding information, which creates the perception that bad news is being hidden.
I think something of what underlies this state of affairs is the clear division between people who see Iraq as a clear front in the wider conflict against fundamentalist Islamic fascism and those who do not. Before March 19th, 2003, we did not have this kind of disunity. We were already using warrantless wiretapping to gather intelligence on our enemies, but nobody cared because it seemed justified. Once Iraq proved not to be the swift victory President Bush suggested it would be, then the divisions began.
As I have said previously, I do not think that warrentless wiretapping is the best way to gather intelligence on our enemies, but lacking better tools, I support the use of that tool. Such support does not automatically make me a lackey for the administration, instead a pragmatist waiting for someone to point out a good idea I have not thought of yet.
Actually, I think you mischaracterize the opposition to the war. The reasons for going have been challenged from the word go. That those who interpreted available intelligence differently than the administration were demonized created backlash against the invasion. That the intelligence was woefully inadequate, wrong, and patently false in many places created backlash against the war. That political aims were held higher than military realities created backlash against the war. That the occupation was bungled by not being adequately planned for created backlash against the war. That the president and especially the vice president have acted from the first in a manner not in keeping with the constitutional parameters of their offices and the dignity of their positions have created endless amounts of backlash against them and their aims, including the war.
The swiftness of the victory wasn't the reason for the backlash. It was just the icing on the cake.
Scott, I agree with your point; my statement was not meant to suggest that there was no opposition before the war started, rather that the opposition would have reacted quite differently if there had been a swift victory in Iraq. Before the invasion of Iraq and its consequences, even opponents of the war approached their opposition in the spirit of unity. Afterwards, not so much.
Also, since the topic of the Iraq war is on the table, let's consider that WMDs and ties to al Qaeda were two among a couple of dozen reasons we invaded Iraq. It always troubles me that no one remembers the others because of the WMD and al Qaeda questions. Of course, it troubles me that the evidence about WMDs and al Qaeda are also ignored because what that evidence says is far more troubling than the other reasons combined.
Further, how did it become accepted lore that the entirety of the fault for Iraq lies with the Bush administration? I grant that it was the President and his administration that pushed for invasion, but that push did not happen in a vacuum. If we are going to hold people to account, we should hold everyone to account, not just one or two convenient scapegoats.
Oh, there's plenty of blame to go around. That doesn't mean I'm letting the ringleaders off the hook.
Post a Comment