PatsWickedPissah

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi..._surveillance/

First let me apologize, this is not the typical left wing DU website. I'm sorry. It's a Harvard professor of Constitutional Law. I know that Patters, AAB, Zuma, NEM and the utter BOzos at DU know far more that he does about the Constitution, presidential powers, and the fact that Islamic terror is really not a threat compared to Karl Rove, but humor me here...

In the context of the post-9/11 threat, which includes sleeper cells and sleeper operatives in the United States, no other form of surveillance is likely to be feasible and effective. But this kind of surveillance may not fit into the forms for court orders because their function is to identify targets, not to conduct surveillance of targets already identified. Even retroactive authorization may be too cumbersome and in any event would not reach the initial broad scan that narrows the universe for further scrutiny.



If such impersonal surveillance on the orders of the president for genuine national security purposes without court or other explicit authorization does violate some constitutional norm, then we are faced with a genuine dilemma and not an occasion for finger-pointing and political posturing.

If the situation is as I hypothesize and leads to important information that saves lives and property, would any reasonable citizen want it stopped? But if it violates the Constitution can we accept the proposition that such violations must be tolerated?

We should ask ourselves what concrete harm is done by such a program. Is a person's privacy truly violated if his international communications are subject to this kind of impersonal, computerizerd screening? If it is not, at what stage of further focus do real, rather than abstract and hysterical concerns arise? And to what extent is the hew and cry about this program a symptom of a generalized distrust of all government, or of just this administration?

If of all government, then we are in a state of mind that renders us incapable of defending ourselves from real threats. If of this administration, then can we afford to disarm the only government we have until the result of the next election, which is likely to be as partisan and closely divided as the last?

All_Around_Brown

The american people should welcome this debate. That is what he's saying after all. We need to first decide precisely how far invoking "war powers" should go. I have no problem with his perspective in this editorial. His assumptions are a little premature, however, in that we do not yet know how these illegal warrants were used.

Why wasn't FISA "necessary" is the key question.

Its also amusing how you cannot seem to discriminate between columnists and journalists.

BTW...show me an instance where I've quoted DU, and I'll show you an instance when you've cited The Nation.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Zuma

I'm familiar w/DUI...but not sure what DU is. Democratic something I guess...

PatsWickedPissah

I agree with your 1st assertion. I disagree with the de facto characterization of "illegal".

I'm at a loss with the assertion that I characterized this fellow as a journalist.

Turk

You cannot expect much of a debate or any credit for matter, when you start off by calling the other side "bozos" and following up with false accusations and assertions.

What makes this country of ours great is our diversity and the fact that we celebrate our diversity, let's start off with that.

Turk

PatsWickedPissah

The folks at DU ARE Bozos. Sorry for posting facts that offend your distorted perceptions.

Pujo

I've read your posts and you seem intelligent enough to know "fact" from "opinion". Someone being or not being a bozo is not a fact, no matter how much you believe it to be true. The type stuff of stuff in your quote above is only good for talk-radio, not a real discussion or debate.

Despite what some people think, no ideology holds a monopoly on the truth.

DarrylS

Another "bozo" reply,

"If of all government, then we are in a state of mind that renders us incapable of defending ourselves from real threats. If of this administration, then can we afford to disarm the only government we have until the result of the next election, which is likely to be as partisan and closely divided as the last?"

This is the core of this whole argument, i.e. there is a distrust of the Bush adm and his overall actions. Taken alone the idea of wiretaps without the use of FISA may not be that offensive, however in the context of a very long line of clandestine and illegal actions by the greatest democracy in the world make is more agregious. The reality is that GWB and his crew have divided this country and have taken many liberties under the guise of executive privilege, if they had truly earned this right then the issue may be swept under the rug. However in light of the wrong intelligence about Iraq, the Abu Ghraib stuff, the clandestine activities of NSA and CIA, the leaks about Valerie Plame and on and on divides us as a nation and makes us more distru(Please be quiet - edited)l of the actions of this government.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.