Good thing they are, too. The rights of suspected terrorists are the same rights that protect you & me & every innocent person around the world.

The ACLU is a thorn in the side of decent pwople.

I'm a liberal Jew, and I have a hard time understanding how your position qualifies as that, as your blog heading states. I would think as a liberal Jew, even a hawkish one, you'd favor not throwing people in jail indefinitely with no recourse to challenge the grounds of their detention. As has been done in Guantanamo Bay.

You think the terrorists are laughing all the way to paradise, about habeas corpus and warantless wiretapping? If they care at all, they'd more likely be amused that we've so quickly removed our valued freedoms that we say they hate so much.

Protect us from what, smijer?

From having our throats slit, or from a computer system doing data analysis on our communications patterns?

If you in any way think the two are comparable, or deserving of in any way equivalent response, whether proactive or reactive by society, you are a fool or an enemy.

Bear in mind, a "suspected" terrorist is not a person chosen at random. He is a person identified as such by the very intelligence gathering operations that you would render illegal. The people declaring him "suspected" are the best intelligence analysts available to our nation, and our nation's allies. A determination in the halls of the CIA, MI-5, ASIS or God help us even DGES that a person is linked to a terrorist organization is based on better data and analysis than any such second guessing by a judge, whatever the legal system.
The judge, after all, isn't trained in these things. A pitiful few are. You have no idea how rare a skill it is, or how few in number our professional eavesdroppers. It is like drinking from a fire hose.

Bear in mind, also, that snooping is NOT a punishment to be assigned by a court. Snooping is the gathering of facts. Snooping will help determine whether a person is not a terrorist (and thereby a waste of precious time and resources) or is a terrorist (and thereby needs to be further monitored, or stopped, as the strategists determine) or remains a source of information. Snooping, therefore, HELPS a government protect rights by allowing decisions to be based on facts.

This is an imperfect world. We have to adjust to it. You have a right to privacy, but I was up the street when the planes hit the towers, and if I thought that maybe, just possibly, a similar event could be prevented by monitoring YOU, without a warrant, without your permission, I would eagerly pore through every moment of your private life, fueled by copious amounts of caffiene and grim determination and without a shred of remorse. And if my analysis proved wrong and my data hunting turned up nothing- I would be proud. I would have stood my watch and done my best to protect people in a Homo Homini Lupus world. And, in the end, it all goes in the burn bag, you'll never know, and no harm's been done.

Ben

"I'm a liberal Jew, and I have a hard time understanding how your position qualifies as that, as your blog heading states. I would think as a liberal Jew, even a hawkish one, you'd favor not throwing people in jail indefinitely with no recourse to challenge the grounds of their detention.

I should really change the heading, because half the contributors are conservatives. I am on the liberal libertarian-ish end on social and economic issues.

Enemy combatants don't have a right to habeas corpus since they are not citizens, and the ACLU doesn't sound like they are distinguishing between them and citizens, so that weakens their case

Ben has more faith that our intelligence agencies will pick the right person than I do. I think some innocent citizens will be targeted and have no recourse once they are imprisoned. I wish the ACLU would focus on monitoring the rights of US citizens. Which does not include freedom from snooping, BTW.

Ben, there is no reason why our intelligence agencies are unable to act according to the law and constitution in order to ferret out would-be threats. Existing law (before the unconstitutional Military Commissions Act of 2006) gives them all the power they could possibly need to do so.

So, this has nothing to do with protecting me or you from having our throats slit & it has nothing to do with preventing another 9/11. The British used warrants and all the other legal tools to discover and prevent the major terrorist attack being planned this summer, you know.

But, yes, if I knew our government were run by people who had no care for expanding their own power - people, perhaps, like you - who were motivated to do "whatever it takes" to stop pontential terrorists from carrying out their plans, and if I thought it always would be run by this good sort of people, then I would be happy to step aside & let them skirt the checks on their power that protect our liberties from our own government.

Unfortunately, not enough people are that trustworthy. Unfortunately the lure of taking the world's only remaining "superpower" as one's own personal power is too strong. Nixon tried to jail his political enemies, and tried to use our nation's incredible intelligence agencies as his tool for doing so. Fortunately, he was caught, and the Congress recognized the need to regulate how the Executive branch went about doing its national security business to prevent this kind of abuse. Our incredible intelligence agencies can be used for good, or they can be used the way the KGB once was - to keep political dissent silenced and to keep totalitarian power in the hands of a few.

That is what I'm hoping to be protected from when the ACLU makes its demands to the courts.

I agree with you that the intelligence services are far better equipped and trained to detect potential terrorists than "some judge". But, that being the case, we still must ask them to provide, within a reasonable amount of time after doing espionage against a target, a case to the judge showing that this is what they have really done: identified a potential threat that requires more monitoring. They have the ability to do this as well. Otherwise, they, and their cohorts in the Executive branch of government are free to target whomever they choose for whatever reason... because there is no longer anyone with the authority to check behind them.

And it isn't always the potential terrorists, as identified by the intelligence agencies who are victims of a regime that does not respect civil rights. An Iraqi who happens to be in the wrong place when an IED goes off can be picked up by a military patrol and sent to a secret prison, where he never has a right to have his case heard, and never has to be turned loose. Imagine, life in prison, and torture, for the crime of sweeping one's sidewalk on a bad day. If the pentagon brass decide it's too embarrassing to let such a victim see the light of day again, he may be disappeared forever.

Do we want other nations to follow our lead? If we have a family member travelling overseas, and a foreign government decides to disappear them, do we want them to use the same policies we are using as a rationale for throwing our family members in a pit and never even giving them a trial?

Be thankful that the ACLU is doing its work on your behalf.

To judge from the contents of Guantanamo the US Government can declare whoever it wishes to be an enemy combatant, without the need for tedious evidence.

Since in one of our recent exchanges Ben indignantly declared himself a liberal (to the amusement of all who read it) Judith may meet resistance to changing the banner.

Ben, of course, is simply waiting for the day when that tedious constitution is torn up, elections become a thing of the past and his dream world of universal oppression (except for him, natch) becomes reality.

I have to say, the site has gone downhill since Ben and Cinnamon joined. It used to be fun to laugh at you guys, but now that's getting to be like poking fun at the disabled.

Smijer,

1) Existing law is insufficient. The British actually have a far more "pro-survellance" legal system than we do, possible a leftover from the IRA days- that is why they have made fewer changes. They can do what we can not.

2) I agree that the powerful will corrupt a system and use it to their advantage- but the potential for damage is still, to me, far less. First, most of the grunt work of intel is done at a very low level, and at a technical level. The president has political enemies, but the techy who has spent six months running a clandestine communications intercept operation does not, and he knows what he's doing. He knows full well whether the target is real or not.

3) You mention, " a reasonable amount of time after" and I agree. Unfortunately, this is not what the ACLU wants. They want an unreasonable amount of time BEFORE and this makes intelligence quite impossible- it is impossible to present a cogent case for clandestine intel gathering against a target when you haven't yet gathered anything to base your case on. Intel services must be allowed to operate with wide discretion. Further, there are times when you WANT to watch a completely innocent person (or presumed innocent). Before you seek out the abnormal, you must understand normal. What's the baseline? What constitutes an unusual calling pattern if you don't know the typical calling pattern?

Rob,

Yeah, I dream of an end to elections and world oppresion- about as much as you dream of surrendering the West to a violent sharia based theocracy. (I'm assuming, for the purpose of sarcasm here, that you actually don't, but hey, I could be wrong, judging by your arguments.)

So let's not bother reading each others' arguments- you live in a world where the enemy simply doesn't exist, I live in a world where tens of millions are shouting Death to America and willing to kill anyone who looks Danish over a cartoon, where buildings and busses have blown up. People die in my world, and people are scared of dying. Major media networks change their policies because they fear the bomber, not the spy.

Stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and it won't bother you. Then, when some mythical individual is spied on without charges, you can release all the outrage that went silent through the death and dismemberment, as if it is somehow worse.

And you are amused by the fact that I call myself Liberal? If it appeases you and your antiquated weltenschaung, just think of me as a Conservative, then. A pro-gay rights, pro- women's rights, pro-abortion rights, environmentalist, pro-immigration, pro-affirmative action pro-stem cell research secular humanist Conservative.

Pardon me, but who the F*** made you the arbiter of what is Liberal? Do we have to score 99 out of 100, or is only 100 good enough for you? Does it at all matter to you that a lot of the opposition to government intelligence gathering is actually from the conservative side? Maybe, you are the stereotypical arch-conservative here- since you clearly want to see the west fall under the homophobic, intolerant, racist theo-fascist boot.

Ben

PS.

Rob, if the above description of my political positions on everything else BUT terrorism is insufficient, would you, as self-appointed Keeper of the Book of Liberal let me back in if I argue in favor of progressive taxation? I forgot to include that in my list.

I know, I know, "Just because Ben occupies the Liberal side of the political spectrum on at least 80% of issues, I still laugh at his claim because he opposes me on this one!"

Such tight requirements these days. It was easier back when the issue was bussing. Now, you can be against gay marriage and STILL be called liberal as long as you oppose security- how in heck does that work?

Yet I am puzzled- why is it that you consider intelligence gathering a Right Wing thing, when history suggests both Right and Left will do it? Some of the most seriously left wing governments have a real passion for espionage!

Ben

If the pentagon brass decide it's too embarrassing to let such a victim see the light of day again, he may be disappeared forever.

..and Bush and Cheney may decide to eat such a victim for breakfast (after they remove their humanoid masks and reveal their real, lizardlike visages). In a world of paranoid speculation, who knows what people may do?

If we have a family member travelling overseas, and a foreign government decides to disappear them, do we want them to use the same policies we are using as a rationale for throwing our family members in a pit and never even giving them a trial?

Be thankful that the ACLU is doing its work on your behalf.

Remind me again, which party uses fearmongering to win elections? Because you're not making ACLU supporters or the Democracts look good here.

Are all ACLU supporters raging paranoiacs? If this is their pitch, I'd have to guess that they are.

Mary, perhaps it is paranoia - but perhaps the founders who wrote the fourth amendment might be accused of paranoia too. I believe they represented us well. Whether or not you think the current administration is going to abuse their power, where the potential for abuse exists, and the power is so incredibly alluring, the actuality will exist sooner or later.

But, I don't think it is paranoia at all. Let's ask Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri & see what he thinks about it. Or, how about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."?

I think you give too much credit to human nature.

Ben, I can't comment on your characterization of the Brits as having a more "pro-surveillance" legal structure. I do know they have the controversial "State Secrets Act", but I don't know that it played any role in this summer's interception. From everything I read on the matter, they used good old warrants the same as once would have been required here.

I would argue that 72 hours after the surveillance has begun is adequate time to file for a warrant - this is what FISA requires, and I don't think the ACLU is pushing us toward a stricter standard. If 72 hours isn't enough, there are legal and constitutional means for extending that another 72 hours. Testimony before the legislative bodies by intelligence experts should be compelling if such a change is needed, and such a change (within reason) would not find any obstacles from the courts.

Mary,

We have fears, Rob and Smijer have fears. Nothing wrong with fear. Fear is just nature's way of telling you to be ready for something really bad.

The difference is, what I am afraid of, I have seen, with my own eyes. And smelled with my nose.

What they are afraid of, they have heard about others claiming. Second hand at best, with usually a lawyer or advocate or two somewhere along the information chain.

It's all about fear, I simply maintain that my own empirical evidence demonstrates that mine is a lot more valid that theirs.

Ben

Smijer,

Yes, the ACLU has its sights on FISA, and would like to see it gone. Interestingly, they complain publicly that the government goes too far when it violates FISA, but it court, they have a different position: FISA itself goes too far.

From their "Friend of the Court" brief,
USA vs Jeffrey Leon Battle

"Because the vast majority of FISA surveillance targets will never receive notice that their privacy has been violated, and because the very existence of FISA’s broad surveillance powers chills expression protected by the first amendment, amici urge the Court to consider the facial validity of FISA in this case.”

Clearly, they do not intend "restrict surveillance to that authorized by FISA" they intend "defeat FISA".

Therefore, if you consider the FISA requirements as reasonable, your position is somewhere between that of the ACLU and mine, and I can accept that as at least being well intentioned.

Ben

Mary, perhaps it is paranoia - but perhaps the founders who wrote the fourth amendment might be accused of paranoia too. I believe they represented us well.

Yes, they did. This is how one of the founding fathers dealt with annoyances from Islamic lands..

When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000...As he declared in his first annual message to Congress:...The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war. The aggressive action of Commodore Edward Preble (1803-4) forced Morocco out of the fight and his five bombardments of Tripoli restored some order to the Mediterranean. However, it was not until 1805, when an American fleet under Commodore John Rogers and a land force raised by an American naval agent to the Barbary powers, Captain William Eaton, threatened to capture Tripoli and install the brother of Tripoli's pasha on the throne, that a treaty brought an end to the hostilities. Negotiated by Tobias Lear, former secretary to President Washington and now consul general in Algiers, the treaty of 1805 still required the United States to pay a ransom of $60,000 for each of the sailors held by the dey of Algiers, and so it went without Senatorial consent until April 1806. Nevertheless, Jefferson was able to report in his sixth annual message to Congress in December 1806 that in addition to the successful completion of the Lewis and Clark expedition, "The states on the coast of Barbary seem generally disposed at present to respect our peace and friendship."

The best defense is a good offense...

Ben

OK, after all that detail I guess I'll accept that you're a liberal, though the tip of the Ben iceberg that I had previosuly seen on KT was definitely more Attila the conservative. There we are: people are complicated. Do you know what IS funny? Most of the issues you list when demonstrating your liberal bona fides aren't even issues here in the UK any more: at least, not in the sense that they could serve to position you on a liberal-conservative axis other than as "not actually a neo-Nazi".

"What I am afraid of, I have seen with my own eyes.....What they are afraid of, they have heard about others claiming. Second hand at best, with usually a lawyer or advocate or two somewhere along the information chain."

Well, I don't know what you've seen with your own eyes, but I'm assuming 9/11. I haven't personally come under government/police surveillance as far as I know (but then would I know?.....) A good friend of mine from when I lived in London had reason to believe his calls were being illegally monitored (and hell, he worked for the phone company so I'm inclined to believe him). Plus he was hauled in by the police for alleged violent involvement in a (totally legal) demonstration about which he'd been speaking on the phone but which he hadn't, in fact, attended. His alibi, amusingly enough, was that he'd had to go into work to attend a telecomms planning meeting at New Scotland Yard (police HQ).

I also know someone who worked for a phone company who illegally tapped his own phone because he suspected his wife of having an affair.

Smijer's right: for a (legal) phone tap here in the UK you need a court order, which requires that the police show some kind of evidence of why they think this person's a threat. It's not a huge gurdle, and I'm not suggesting it should be: just enough to prevent a free-for-all surveillance society such as you appear to favour.

When I lived in London I had personal experience of terrorist (IRA and clones) bombings (I didn't get blown up in them, but my office was evacuated for one, and I remember a lot of cancelled trains because of suspect packages at stations). At that time we had the Thatcher government which went down the route of imprisonment without trial, torture, extrajudical executions, unfair trials, the works, to no great effect. It was only when successive governments began to talk to the bad guys and at least find out where they were coming from that any progress was made.

As you say, it;'s about fear. I'm not just afraid of the kind of secret police apparatus implied by your desire to move away from the rule of law: I'm afraid that it doesn't work, so you end up progressively giving up those things that distinguish you from the bad guys, and still you get nowhere.

Mary

"Remind me again, which party uses fearmongering to win elections?"

Er, that would be the Republicans; or it would be if they'd won.

"Gurdle"? Whoever put the G and H next to each other, own up.... I meant "hurdle", of course.

When I lived in London I had personal experience of terrorist (IRA and clones) bombings (I didn't get blown up in them, but my office was evacuated for one, and I remember a lot of cancelled trains because of suspect packages at stations). At that time we had the Thatcher government which went down the route of imprisonment without trial, torture, extrajudical executions, unfair trials, the works, to no great effect. It was only when successive governments began to talk to the bad guys and at least find out where they were coming from that any progress was made.

When I lived in London, and when I visited Ireland, I also had personal experience of terrorism. I may have even met a few bad guys (who knows, they don't wear uniforms). Believe me, government talks and outreach programs had nothing to do with the reason progress was made. Basically, they don't stop until they run out of support, community support or money.

Since al Qaeda does not rely on community support (outside of Saudi Arabia), money is their crutch. We can't deal with our fear by turning against our own government or by turning America into a panic room. We can only deal with it by facing the source of it, and destroying it.