So much for the Fourth Amendment

[AdamSmith]

The Economist excoriates the administration's continued trampling of civil liberties:

Transparency and secrecy

Score one for the thicket

Jan 3rd 2013, 21:43 by J.F. | ATLANTA

WHILE everyone was watching the fiscal-cliff debacle, Congress and Barack Obama decided that they could still eavesdrop on Americans' putatively private conversations without putting themselves to the trouble of obtaining a warrant. The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act, which Congress extended following weeks of fierce, impassioned a rushed single day of debate, allows federal agencies to listen to the phone calls and read the emails of American citizens' international communications (even that one day of debate, by the way, was hard won). The government must get approval to snoop from a FISA court, which is untroubled by niceties such as probable cause, and the communications in question need only pertain to "foreign intelligence information", a phrase so broad as to be utterly meaningless.

In extending the FISA Amendments Act, the Senate rejected four sensible amendments. One, proposed by Ron Wyden, would have compelled the National Security Agency (NSA) to tell Americans how many people they have spied on. Rand Paul's amendment would have reminded government that Americans have fourth-amendment protections against warrantless searches. Jeff Merkley's amendment would have compelled the government to release any FISA court decisions that contain interpretations of what the FISA Amendments Act actually permits in practice. And Pat Leahy's amendment would have reduced the term of the extension to three years rather than five. Do you know what none of them would have done? Forced the government to stop snooping. They would not even have curtailed the government's snooping (Mr Paul's might have, if it could have been made to have more teeth than rhetoric, but its actual import is far from clear). Mr Wyden's and Mr Merkley's amendments simply asked for more information about the NSA's spying to be made public, and Mr Paul's would have merely reminded the government that the constitution exists, whether they like it or not.

Mr Obama's administration won another victory for secrecy yesterday, when a federal judge declined to force the Justice Department to turn over legal memos detailing the justification for drone strikes, particularly drone strikes that kill American citizens. One of the plaintiffs, the New York Times, requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) both "all Office of Legal Counsel opinions or memoranda since 2001 that address the legal status of targeted killing" and one year later memoranda and opinions "analyzing the circumstances under which it would be lawful for United States armed forces or intelligence community assets to target for killing a United States citizen who is deemed to be a terrorist". The other plaintiff, the American Civil Liberties Union, made a similar request, although it specifically requested information pertaining to Anwar al-Awlaki, an American accused of being a terrorist who was killed in a drone strike, along with a second American citizen, on September 30th 2011 (another drone killed Mr al-Awlaki's 16-year-old, Colorado-born son two weeks later).

Though the judge sided with the administration, her reasoning was acid: "I can only conclude," she wrote, "that the government has not violated FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents sought in the FOIA requests, and so cannot be compelled by this court of law to explain in detail the reasons why its actions do not violate the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules—a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and procedures that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusions a secret." In other words, I would if I could.

Both plaintiffs have promised to appeal, and there is a good chance this case will ultimately wind up before the Supreme Court. But who knows when, and that is part of the problem. Mr Obama first ran for office five years ago promising to roll back some of his predecessor's more outrageous violations of civil liberties. He has done nothing of the sort. Mr Obama signed the FISA extension into law on December 30th, and he won the right to keep his rationale for killing Americans secret three days later. He deserves full measures of opprobrium for both, but this is no more about him than the Patriot Act was about his predecessor. The extension lasts for five years, by which time Mr Obama will no longer be in office. This is about America's imperial presidency and the fourth amendment, which it has trampled into irrelevant ink smudges.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/01/transparency-and-secrecy

[lookin]

Wonder if all this snooping is covered by Obamacare?

[Lucky]

"Mr Obama first ran for office five years ago promising to roll back some of his predecessor's more outrageous violations of civil liberties. He has done nothing of the sort."

Change you can believe in!

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well I personally don't mind people listening to my communications to protect the public as long as they are trained properly to handle sensitive information. What's the harm in all this? There are more hackers and nut heads we need to worry about and if this program can be effectively used to protect the public against their crazy acts then I'm all for it.

[AdamSmith]

hitoall, meet Ben Franklin:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

[BiBottomBoy]

I wonder if I'm interesting enough for the government to spy on me?

[AdamSmith]

Doesn't the French government spy on everybody?

I knew some American IBMers who were partnered with a French software company that was a subsidiary of a major French aerospace company. Competing against a U.S. software company in a sale to a French auto maker, the IBMers were horrified to hear the head of their French software partner declare openly that he could get (steal) all the details of the competitor's bid ahead of time. He was completely frank that the French government would of course help them with industrial espionage in such a case.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Unfortunately, Ben didn't face the issues we have today... It's a totally different world with new challenges. Trained and authorized government officials need to get in fast to everywhere if needed since even a split of second matters.

Holding onto the great ideas of the constitution is admirable but failing to see the changing world is like not allowing gay marriage due to the habit of tradition and practice.. We need a new mind set..

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="AdamSmith" data-cid="72780" data-time="1357311088"><p>

hitoall, meet Ben Franklin:<br />

<br />

<em class='bbc'>Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.</em></p></blockquote>

[lookin]

We need a new mind set..

There's nothing new about a mindset that lets the government into all the nooks and crannies of your personal life. It's been done to death.

[AdamSmith]

hitoall, you know our defense budget is bigger than the next X countries put together, and despite some slippage our industrial and technological prowess remains more than adequate to cook up Stuxnet (yes, with a little help from Siemens, but still). Etc. Clever assassins with box cutters there will ever be, and they do get cleverer, to be sure.

But do you really think Franklin and his broke rag-tag Colonialist compatriots, facing then the world's mightiest empire, did not feel perhaps just a wee bit more peril than we do today? And yet he could say what he did.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Congress and Obama are just being realistic... As long as trained and authorized officials go through private stuff for the safety of others I see no harm in that. Ben simply didn't expect technological advancement we have achieved today. I hope I can put things more eloquently to persuade others here but I guess it's government's job to do that.

[AdamSmith]

hito, one more try:

What are you talking about? "Trained" and "authorized" applies just as surely to the officials of any totalitarian state. The Waffen SS; Himmler, Goebbels, Mengele. Stalin's NKVD. How does that guarantee anything?

As for singling out a historical character to say of him that he didn't expect technological advancement, I think Ben Franklin is the one human out of the entire race (OK, Leonardo too) whom I would hesitate to use as an example.

(Irrelevant example but not completely: When he heard of the discovery of the planetary magnetic lines of force, he immediately wrote to the effect that "once we have chairs that can transport us through the air, perhaps these magnetic fields can be used as an aid to navigation." Imagine!)

More relevantly, he did get the U.S. Post Office set up and running, so he did have some far-seeing thoughts about long-distance communication and information dissemination in general.

[Guest hitoallusa]

My point is that if Ben were to see what challenges we have today then he might have agreed with Obama and Congress.. It's not up to Ben to decide what to do and it's up to us now. Obama made a good decision and people who do get to listen in are trained and authorized by a committee whose members are elected to serve people. It's not something you see in a movie where they are some kind of villains.

[Guest hitoallusa]

By the way trained and authorized life guards and elevator repairmen we trust but why can't you trust trained and authorized government officials to listen in to prevent a major disaster???

[AdamSmith]

Because we have this thing called the Constitution.

Life guards and elevator repairmen are not, to my knowledge, generally engaged in subverting it. In contrast, as the Economist article details, to our current elected officials.

A personal example may help: In some imaginable future national crisis, the Constitution -- providing it has not been nullified by a continuing series of violations like those we are complaining about here -- may be the only thing standing between you and an internment camp adjacent to Area 51.

U.S. citizens of Japanese descent learned during WWII just what can happen when that dusty old parchment is disregarded. Likewise Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus; likewise Adams' Alien & Sedition Act; the list goes on. These are not just abstract dangers.

[RA1]

I suppose a corollary to the statement that those who do not know history are going to repeat it is those who do not understand history will surely repeat it. Totally paraphrased, I know.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest hitoallusa]

Those who are afraid of the past can't move forward and trapped in the past.

[Guest hitoallusa]

So does members of committee elected to serve and represent people. Their intention is pure and to protect. It's out of necessity that they have to do this. It's not something you see in the past or in the movies. 9/11 could have been prevented if people had been open and able to freely discuss these matters, IMHO.

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="AdamSmith" data-cid="72976" data-time="1357398044"><p>

Because we have this thing called the Constitution.<br />

<br />

Life guards and elevator repairmen are not, to my knowledge, generally engaged in subverting it. In contrast, as the <em class='bbc'>Economist</em> article details, to our current elected officials.<br />

<br />

A personal example may help: In some imaginable future national crisis, the Constitution -- providing it has not been nullified by a continuing series of violations like those we are complaining about here -- may be the only thing standing between you and an internment camp adjacent to Area 51.<br />

<br />

U.S. citizens of Japanese descent learned during WWII just what can happen when that dusty old parchment is disregarded. Likewise Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus; likewise Adams' Alien & Sedition Act; the list goes on. These are not just abstract dangers.</p></blockquote>

[AdamSmith]

Counter-thinking on drone policy, by a former Obama security advisor:

http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2013/jan/07/obama-adviser-criticises-drone-policy

[lookin]

Counter-thinking on drone policy, by a former Obama security advisor:

http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2013/jan/07/obama-adviser-criticises-drone-policy

What drone policy?

ACLU takes CIA to court as agency denies existence of drone programme

[lookin]

Well I personally don't mind people listening to my communications to protect the public as long as they are trained properly to handle sensitive information. What's the harm in all this? . . .

Unfortunately, Ben didn't face the issues we have today... It's a totally different world with new challenges. Trained and authorized government officials need to get in fast to everywhere if needed since even a split of second matters.

Holding onto the great ideas of the constitution is admirable but failing to see the changing world is like not allowing gay marriage due to the habit of tradition and practice.. We need a new mind set..

Congress and Obama are just being realistic... As long as trained and authorized officials go through private stuff for the safety of others I see no harm in that. Ben simply didn't expect technological advancement we have achieved today. I hope I can put things more eloquently to persuade others here but I guess it's government's job to do that.

My point is that if Ben were to see what challenges we have today then he might have agreed with Obama and Congress.. It's not up to Ben to decide what to do and it's up to us now. Obama made a good decision and people who do get to listen in are trained and authorized by a committee whose members are elected to serve people. It's not something you see in a movie where they are some kind of villains.

By the way trained and authorized life guards and elevator repairmen we trust but why can't you trust trained and authorized government officials to listen in to prevent a major disaster???

Those who are afraid of the past can't move forward and trapped in the past.

So does members of committee elected to serve and represent people. Their intention is pure and to protect. It's out of necessity that they have to do this. It's not something you see in the past or in the movies. 9/11 could have been prevented if people had been open and able to freely discuss these matters, IMHO.

If your point is that there are 'bad actors' in the world whose international communications can be shown to bear watching, I'm your biggest supporter.

However, if your point is that the U. S. government can unilaterally decide to dismantle the protections of the two-hundred-and-thirty-year old Fourth Amendment because it has 'trained' and 'authorized' some of its employees to disregard it, I have to wonder if you may have skimmed too quickly through a chapter or two in the history books.

When you let a government bureaucrat, no matter how 'pure' his or her intentions, hive off the judicial branch and decide over lunch who should lose their all of their Constitutional protections, you've lost not only freedom for one or two citizens but for all of us.

Please pardon me if I don't go along.

[Lucky]

Gosh, all of those poor soldiers who went to war to protect and defend our rights did so for noting if we are going to give up those rights so easily to so-called "trained" people to handle them as they see fit. I have to say , hitoallusa, that you don't seem to value freedom and liberty and the American way.

[AdamSmith]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="AdamSmith" data-cid="72976" data-time="1357398044"><p>

U.S. citizens of Japanese descent learned during WWII just what can happen when that dusty old parchment is disregarded. Likewise Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus; likewise Adams' Alien & Sedition Act; the list goes on. These are not just abstract dangers.</p></blockquote>

BTW, these examples needless to say are all of presidents I love. Imagine when some nut (read: not of my political bent) picks up Obama's extraconstitutional legacy and truly runs away with it.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Whether we like it or not it has been going on and will continue to do so.. I'm not exactly sure why you can't see this realistically. And whether we are even talking about the same thing.. I think if you were in Obama's shoes you will probably do the same thing. Maybe I'm wrong but we have to be realistic.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well maybe I slept through in my history class so I give up persuading my view point but I don't think Obama may have done differently...