Government Surveillance?

[maniach]

Why is it that people think that the government spying on them is ok just because they "haven't done anything wrong" and "have nothing to hide"? It's really nice of them to give away our freedoms like that. I'm pretty sure whether you did something wrong or not is completely besides the point! Would they be as willing to give up their right to bear arms? Their freedom of speech? of Religion? Why is the fourth amendment so meaningless these days?

As Benjamin Franklin once said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

What do you all think???

[lawyerlee]

Why is it that people think that the government spying on them is ok just because they "haven't done anything wrong" and "have nothing to hide"?
I think it's really easy to say this when you don't think you've been surveilled. I've heard people say the same thing about issues like racial profiling by police. Funny thing is, when it happens to you, it doesn't feel so good. You *feel* the violation and you understand why it is so important to ensure that our Constitutional rights are protected. Having something actually happen to you can change everything.

And regardless of how people feel about the issue, I happen to believe that the NSA (and the Bush Administration in issuing the orders to allow surveillance) broke the law by conducting warrantless domestic surveillance. This kind of surveillance is supposed to be conducted under FISA and through the FISA courts. I think the fact that the President has no power to conduct surveillance outside the authority of FISA is evidenced by the exception in the Act that gives the President the authority to conduct 15 days of warrantless searches after a declaration of war. If the power to do this was inherent in the office of the President, this limitation would not exist in the statute.

Whether the world is a different place today is irrevelevant, as well. The President promises to uphold the Constitution and our laws when he takes office. He does not say, "I will uphold the law when I think it is in our best interest." One of the best things about our system of government is that it is steady regardless of who is in power. Whether the law will be followed should not be subject to the whim of the leader whose views are in vogue at any given moment.

I look forward to the United States Supreme Court having the opportunity to hear this issue. I firmly believe the Court will agree that this was improper and a violation of law.

[LyLMyssChaos]

I can only speak for myself, but I don't mind if the government wants to "spy" on me, or listen to my conversations. I figure if they've got nothing better to do than sit around and monitor the activities of a law-abiding stay at home mom? Then hey, who am I to ruin their excitement? :rolleyes: I mean, seriously, I even use my blinker in parking lots I am so concious of the law, so about the most exciting thing they'll hear out of listening to my conversations is recaps of the day's episode of Barney or Little Einsteins. I can understand why other people would be upset, but it doesn't really bother me personally. I know I'm not a threat to anything, so go for it.

[jnettie]

You know, when I was a kid in the 80s, we were taught in school that the Russians were bad people because they did stuff like this. Spying on their citizens, asking them to turn parents, friends, neighbors in if they were acting suspicious. All the things that are in the Patriot Act now, were on the list of things that made Russia "bad."

I agree, in abstract it's easy to say you don't mind. But all you need is someone with a bug up their butt to make a call and all hell can brake loose. There's a reason our police need a warrent to search! You need to have PROOF that the person is doing something illegal.

[lawyerlee]

There's a reason our police need a warrent to search! You need to have PROOF that the person is doing something illegal.
Or probable cause, anyway. :)

[ysolde]

I hate the idea. I don't want the government intruding on my private life. That's the whole point -- it's private. If DH and I are doing anything from talking dirty to arguing on the phone, that's our own darn business, and the government has no right to know about it, since neither of us has done anything that would give the government probable cause (or even reasonable, articulable suspicion) to believe we are doing anything illegal. My conversations with my mother about our concerns about my father's health -- private. My concerns about my sister -- private. Plans to go out for tea with the girls -- private. Best friend's break-up from her latest boyfriend -- private. Whether another close friend's relationship will lead to engagement -- private. Why I liked "The Constant Gardner" -- private. And on and on.

There is absolutely no reason to supercede the Constitution in this matter. We are a nation of laws, not of Kings, however certain people in power may perceive themselves.

[msnicolea]

ITA, ysolde. The point isn't "well I have nothing to hide, so why should I care?" The point is we should ALL care because this type of behavior goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for. I think it's appalling.

[hockeybrat]

You know, when I was a kid in the 80s, we were taught in school that the Russians were bad people because they did stuff like this. Spying on their citizens, asking them to turn parents, friends, neighbors in if they were acting suspicious. All the things that are in the Patriot Act now, were on the list of things that made Russia "bad."




Yes, I remember that too! I also remember going to China on vacation, my parents told us not to tell our relatives where they actually worked because they, at the time, were working for General Dynamics.

Even though I don't have anything to hide, I don't like the idea of having the government spy on us. Too Kremlin and Red China for me. This is America, for cripes sake! What the hell? What will be next? Lines for toilet paper?

[JamBray]

I agree ysolde and msnicolea. I don't care if I'm talking about the paint drying on my walls. That is no one's business but mine and the person I'm talking with, and I think the government having/taking this right is wrong.

[emmjay]

Not to mention that once people start voluntarily giving up their freedoms (saying they don't mind, etc.), it makes it that much easier to completely take them away. That's why it's so important to ensure that we maintain the freedoms we have already, even if it doesn't bother you in a particular instance.

[pocket]

We should all be concerned about this. Even if you completely trust Bush to be the President King, 2008 is not that far away. What if Cheney were to become the President King? Do you trust Cheney? I don’t. Put it this way – would you go on a hunting trip with him alone? And what if someone else were to win the election in 2008? Do you trust Hilary Clinton to make decisions about this?

Our political system is based on the assumption that people are nasty grasping creatures, that power will inevitably corrupt, and that we need to plan on the assumption that our political system CAN be corrupted. We have laws in this country, and no one is above them. What King Bush authorized was illegal, and he knew it or he wouldn’t have tried to hide it for so long. There isn’t an uncompromised legal opinion that agrees with him. Only the guys who live on his patronage agree with him. Now how can anyone look at that and say that system isn’t corrupted.

[pocket]

it isn't for us to personally mind or not mind about government surveillance. I don't mind if the police pull up to the front of my house and want to come in. I have nothing to hide. But if they don't have a warrant they don't get to search my home.

[mgrace]

Electronic surveillance has been going on since George Washington was in office, according to Alberto Gonzales, so no new freedoms are being taken away, right?

Seriously though, I think it sucks.

[PG-rated]

One of the things that bothers me is that you have no idea how easy it is to make a case out of flimsy or circumstantial "evidence." I'm always reminded of the time when DH's coworkers were having lunch and discussing the street closings for the inauguration. They work right near the Capitol, and were trying to figure out how to get to work, so they started drawing a little diagram of the surrounding area. A man walked up to them, identified himself as federal law enforcement, and demanded to know what they were talking about and why they were drawing a map. He believed their explanation, but what if he hadn't? Then you have the testimony of a federal officer that he heard them discussing street routes and a map drawn on a napkin, and that probably would be enough to get them put in custody for a little while. And all for planning to get to work on time.

[lawyerlee]

Electronic surveillance has been going on since George Washington was in office, according to Alberto Gonzales, so no new freedoms are being taken away, right?

Seriously though, I think it sucks.
I firmly believe Mr. Gonzales is smarter than that. In the first place, the Constitution requires probable cause and a warrant. I have no problem with electronic surveillance in that context. Secondly, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was not law in this country until 1978. So I don't think Washington's admin had to worry about that. ;) :)

[Emilie]

I have nothing to hide but that doesn't mean I want the government to be able to snoop around in my personal business.

ysolde said it perfectly.

[pocket]

Exactly! It's not like this administration are so great at everything that we have no cause to worry at all. They F up everything they touch. Plus there's the issue of the tradeoff. They listen in to all these conversations - as I understand it, they have programs that filter based on probability and keywords. And then they get a layer that receive further scrutiny, and after that another layer than receive even more scrutiny ad infinitum. That's what the W-Post is saying anyway. I don't trust them to develop the criteria, and I certainly don't trust some future NSA that I haven't even imagined yet to make these decisions. Even if they get one lead that pans out, they have violated the civil rights of thousands in order to get one lead. W-Post is also saying that their sources tell them that most of the leads have been bunk. If the administration claims that they thwarted an LA plot, but again they have a lot of reasons to lie, and have produced very little evidence other than *trust me*. Plus what are they doing with the records that don't pan out. Keeping them, right?

[lawyerlee]

Exactly! It's not like this administration are so great at everything that we have no cause to worry at all. They F up everything they touch. Plus there's the issue of the tradeoff. They listen in to all these conversations - as I understand it, they have programs that filter based on probability and keywords. And then they get a layer that receive further scrutiny, and after that another layer than receive even more scrutiny ad infinitum. That's what the W-Post is saying anyway. I don't trust them to develop the criteria, and I certainly don't trust some future NSA that I haven't even imagined yet to make these decisions. Even if they get one lead that pans out, they have violated the civil rights of thousands in order to get one lead. W-Post is also saying that their sources tell them that most of the leads have been bunk. If the administration claims that they thwarted an LA plot, but again they have a lot of reasons to lie, and have produced very little evidence other than *trust me*. Plus what are they doing with the records that don't pan out. Keeping them, right?
Not only that, but the anonymous NSA sources for a Post story on this topic also said they were *very* uncomfortable with the fact that the information they collect is not disposed of if nothing is found in it. WTF?! :(

[kedzieb]

I think this is illegal and hate it for all the obvious reasons. Freedom trumps security, and we don't deserve to be safe if we don't protect our freedoms. I don't want a new daddy - I want a president who's accountable to his country's citizens.

But i also feel like if the government is SO bad at surveillance, spying, intelligence that it has to stoop to illegal wiretaps, we're all screwed. It reminds me of the cop/courtroom dramas on TV. Of course it would be easier to catch the crook by breaking the rules, but that makes the cop just as bad as the crook. Or rather, into a crook. Nixon was impeached for less.

Seriously - getting a FISA warrant is easier than getting in Paris Hilton's panties! You can even get one up to 3 days after a search. So to me, this is more to do with increasing the president's power and decreasing his accountability (or a paper trail) than protecting us from terrorists.

[Scooter]

Spying on their citizens, asking them to turn parents, friends, neighbors in if they were acting suspicious. All the things that are in the Patriot Act now, were on the list of things that made Russia "bad." You are so right. During the Cold War we were all taught what made the Communists "bad" were they were doing the same things we are now being asked to do. Funny what happens when the propaganda turns around.

It seems very unpatriotic to me to willing give up the freedoms that our country has fought so long to keep. And doing it in the name of patriotism--well that's exactly what many of our enemies have done in their own countries.

Seems frightening to me that fighting terrorism in the name of freedom would mean giving up our freedoms (Patriot Act) or being criticised for practicing them (for example protesting).

[dionysia]

Seriously - getting a FISA warrant is easier than getting in Paris Hilton's panties!*snerk* :p

I agree with the rest of your post too, Kedzieb.

Di

[lawyerlee]

Seems frightening to me that fighting terrorism in the name of freedom would mean giving up our freedoms (Patriot Act) or being criticised for practicing them (for example protesting).
Totally. That is exactly what I said when I wrote my Congressional reps about this issue. That argument is completely illogical! :(

LOL @ kedzieb! :D

[lawyerlee]

I might drop dead at any moment. I'm finding myself agreeing with George Will. Hold me! :eek: ;)

No Checks, Many Imbalances (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502003.html?sub=AR)
Washington Post

The next time a president asks Congress to pass something akin to what Congress passed on Sept. 14, 2001 -- the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) -- the resulting legislation might be longer than Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past." Congress, remembering what is happening today, might stipulate all the statutes and constitutional understandings that it does not intend the act to repeal or supersede.

But, then, perhaps no future president will ask for such congressional involvement in the gravest decision government makes -- going to war. Why would future presidents ask, if the present administration successfully asserts its current doctrine? It is that whenever the nation is at war, the other two branches of government have a radically diminished pertinence to governance, and the president determines what that pertinence shall be. This monarchical doctrine emerges from the administration's stance that warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency targeting American citizens on American soil is a legal exercise of the president's inherent powers as commander in chief, even though it violates the clear language of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was written to regulate wartime surveillance.

Administration supporters incoherently argue that the AUMF also authorized the NSA surveillance -- and that if the administration had asked, Congress would have refused to authorize it. The first assertion is implausible: None of the 518 legislators who voted for the AUMF has said that he or she then thought it contained the permissiveness the administration discerns in it. Did the administration, until the program became known two months ago? Or was the AUMF then seized upon as a justification? Equally implausible is the idea that in the months after Sept. 11, Congress would have refused to revise the 1978 law in ways that would authorize, with some supervision, NSA surveillance that, even in today's more contentious climate, most serious people consider conducive to national security.

Anyway, the argument that the AUMF contained a completely unexpressed congressional intent to empower the president to disregard the FISA regime is risible coming from this administration. It famously opposes those who discover unstated meanings in the Constitution's text and do not strictly construe the language of statutes.

Just the other day Justice Scalia said you would have to be stupid not to believe in textualism. Stupid, indeed.

[lawyerlee]

Interesting. On April 20, 2004, the President said that there was no wiretapping without court orders. Guess someone was lying.

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html)
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

[lawyerlee]

Accord in House to Hold Inquiry on Surveillance (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/politics/17nsa.html?hp&ex=1140238800&en=36843e33d850eee1&ei=5094&partner=homepage)
New York Times

In a sign of the bitter partisan split the potential inquiry has engendered, the Senate panel met behind closed doors for nearly two hours before voting, along party lines, simply to adjourn. Mr. Roberts said that if there was no detailed agreement with the White House by the time of the next committee meeting, on March 7, the panel could take up the issue of an inquiry then.

"The administration is now committed to legislation and has agreed to brief more Intelligence Committee members on the nature of the surveillance program," Mr. Roberts said, adding that "the administration has come a long way in the last month."

Mr. Roberts and other Republicans say they are wary of an investigation into the secret program because providing information to Congress might result in leaks. But Democrats say there is no way to pass legislation involving the program until they have more information about it.

"I don't think it's possible for Congress to produce responsible bipartisan legislation dealing with a program that Congress knows very little about," Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said.

Until now, Mr. Bush has steadfastly resisted the idea of new legislation, arguing that he has the inherent authority to order the wiretaps and that Congress also gave him the power to do so when it authorized him to use military force after the Sept. 11 attacks. But the White House is under increasing pressure from Republicans who are skeptical of that assertion.

[lawyerlee]

Statement - John Amidon, Target of Illegal Spying (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/24185res20060217.html)

It was April 20, 2005. We stood in front of the fountain at the SUNY Albany, Campus Center. As a member of Veterans For Peace, I had been asked to speak about honesty in recruitment, and about discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans by the U.S. military. New York State law prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual preference- that is, unless the employer is the U.S. military. Approximately 75 students and community members attended this rally, most supporting the exclusion of recruiters from campus if recruiters continued their discrimination. It was a spirited dialogue, with discussion of important ideas ranging far beyond the stated purpose of this demonstration. The few dissenters were also open to dialogue. The disastrous and illegal war in Iraq, the energy crisis, and the continued erosion of civil liberties were very real concerns to everyone present. Little did we know we were being spied on that day!

Seven months later in December of 2005, NBC News aired a story about groups being spied on by the government. The SUNY Albany event was one the ones that had been watched. Where was the threat to national security? I certainly don’t feel like a threat, and I didn’t feel threatened by the other people who attended the protest – even those who disagreed with me.

When asked how I felt about being spied on, I couldn't help but reflect on the breadth and scope of the U.S. intelligence community: the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, private contractors, informants, spies, the DEA, AFT, and secret units I have yet to learn about. How, then, did they fail to predict the Soviet Union's demise, the 1998 Indian nuclear test, or the absence of Saddam's WMDs? Both al Qaeda's planning of 9/11 and its operatives were missed and the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was bombed in 1999. Currently the Bush administration continues to ignore, discredit or distort what little real intelligence remains. On top of all this, I learn the military is spying on me. How do I feel? Genuinely irritated, but not astonished. Just what the hell is going on here?

Maybe, just maybe if the leaders of the "Free" world stopped spying on Quakers and librarians and Veterans For Peace, they might actually engage in the work we are paying them to do - protect rather than harm and threaten us. When the administration replaces life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with death, destruction and the pursuit of madness; when the three branches of the Federal government are aligned with the Fourth Estate in coercion and corruption; when the" rule of law" is replaced by" the law of man", I fear we have lost our Republic and have wrought ourselves a dictatorship. How do I feel? I feel angry, depressed and disgusted. I also feel strongly motivated to affirm and protect our inalienable rights and freedoms. I served honorably as a Corporal in the Marines during the Vietnam War from 1965 to 1969. I swore an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. I still intend to honor that oath. I am not intimidated by the government spying on me. I am empowered by it. I am an average guy and I know the fate of our nation now rests in our hands. There is a real urgency now to right the course of this nation and we need everyone to participate in restoring the rule of law to our lives and to our nation. Truly that is how I feel.

Statement - Konstanty Hordynski, Target of Illegal Spying (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/24142res20060214.html)

Abusive domestic surveillance is nothing new. Today, it's common (or, unfortunately, perhaps not so common) knowledge that many in the anti-war community of the 1960's, not to mention prominent civil rights leaders such as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., had their lives disrupted, and on occasion shattered, by programs such as COINTELPRO, which targeted them based not on what they'd done, but what they believed.

As the child of parents who escaped Eastern Bloc Poland, I knew these types of government activities were commonplace elsewhere. My parents told me many a story where figures in the resistance—and even some family friends—were monitored and "disciplined" by the regime.

Poland's country-wide martial law of the 1980's—in Polish, literally, the state of war—declared open surveillance season on every communication or activity. Any perceived deviation from the party line, be it breaking curfew or protesting the Communists, was grounds for the severest sanction. And it all started with unchecked surveillance.

In the United States, on April 5, 2005, I deviated from the party line when I joined a protest against military recruitment.

I didn't protest with Students Against War to be threatening, or to be un-American, or to waste anyone's time. I protested because it was a way I could stand up for what I believed was right. I knew that my actions were protected by the Constitution. Yet the government believes that the peaceful protest in which I took part is a "credible threat." When lawfully standing up for my beliefs—standing up for what I think is right and just—is a "threat" to the government, something is wrong.

We're not in a Cold War anymore. This isn't martial law. We like to think that maybe we learned something from the past—that when governments spy on their own citizens without due cause, both our security and our civil liberties suffer. Obviously, we were wrong.

When I learned our constitutionally protected advocacy was included on a Pentagon list of monitored events, I was taken aback. I was disappointed that this country had strayed so far from its ideals, from the values of freedom, dissent and hearty public debate on which it was founded. I was saddened that the Constitution could be so easily ignored.

I'm not ashamed to say I was a little angry too. Our right to criticize what we believe are misguided government policies must always be protected, especially in a time of national crisis or war. And this fueled my determination to stay a lawful dissenter. Standing up for what is right can never be wrong.

Indeed, what could be more healthy for the "national security" than a nation of thinking, conscientious, engaged citizens?

But, I'm hopeful. If we're being monitored, at least we're being heard. In Poland, the gathering oppression that my parents left behind was the sign of a regime crumbling under widespread public disapproval and internal dissent. I am hopeful that today too, revelations of unlawful spying will prompt us to demand a government that once again values dissent and respects the Constitution as the defender of a secure nation that really lives its ideals.