Liberty for Safety24 Jan 06
Posted by M. Wright | Filed in: Uncategorized
According to CNN, some law students in Washington are quoting Ben Franklin (pictured above) as a rebuttal to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ defense of the anti-terror wiretapping program.
The actual quote is:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
You can argue that the students have misused the quote just as they’ve misphrased it, but my question is this:
Based on this same argument, will these students go on record in support of the privatization of Social Security?
***
See also: Michelle Malkin.
January 24th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Ahh yes. Our wonderful students of law. Perhaps they will treat the Constitution with the same paraphrasing disregard they gave poor Ben F. Watch how discriminating they become when asked about Roe v. Wade, Church/State and other favorite subjects. Details, its child Correct Interpretation, and best friend Proper Application must have been busy at the local coffee house listening to the Brokeback Mountain audiobook on iPod.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:41 am
So, you’re cool with POTUS ignoring any part of the Bill Of Rights he deems necessary? Look, he only wants to take guns from terrorists, too, so you won’t mind that trespass, I’m sure.
What do you make of Gen. Hayden’s dog-n-pony, given the facts?
.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:54 am
I’m not sure that’s exactly what I said, but… they don’t put the “evil” in “evil conservative” for nothin’.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:11 am
mick — you may not have said that, verbatim, but what are we to infer when you’re clowning about college students making a valid point, and pointedly not discussing the content of their message (e.g. the Fourth Amendment issues raised by Bush’s domestic spying program)?
.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:12 am
I’m not clowning. I really want to know.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:25 am
You are clowning — you’re using semantics to deflect the debate from one you don’t want to engage, to one you do want to engage.
But, that’s okay… I mean, it’s only the U.S. Constitution we’re talkin’ about, right?
.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:29 am
And it’s only my blog, right? So I can ask whatever I want, right? Or has the POTUS taken away the First Amendment, too?
January 25th, 2006 at 10:08 am
And it’s only my blog, right? So I can ask whatever I want, right? Or has the POTUS taken away the First Amendment, too?
Right you are, Chief… for the time being. No shortage of clowns who’ll tapdance away from the serious issue on this one, that is for sure.
.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Look, this is a post on Social Security, filed under the category of Social Security. If you want a conservative take on a program to detect and interrupt terrorists, a top-secret program with details I’m not privy to, from lawyers who probably know alot better what they’re talking about than little-ole-me, maybe you should consult powerlineblog.com.
January 25th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
I’m not clowning. I really want to know.
Will you go on record to oppose Safety Belt laws?
January 25th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
I would.
Do I think driving without them is good practice? No.
Should it be illegal to go without? No.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Sen. Leahy keeps saying this is an enormous intrusion on our lives and rights. What about all the entitlement programs Leahy has pushed for that makes me have to work from January to May to pay for before I can work a day for myself? Is listening to an Al Queda operative calling his buddy in America an enormous intrusion but stealing my labor, time and money for five months isn’t?
January 25th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
patrickmead — Fantastic use of the strawman! Seriously, if you’re paying that percentage of your income in entitlement programs (which, obviously, you’re not), you should do what most Republic Party members do — hire a GOOD accountant! :)
And, you miss the point, entirely, NO ONE, left, right or center, suggests that we shouldn’t spy on al Qaeda operatives (and you, again, trust the POTUS to say, “that’s all we’re doing”). Fact is, there are these things called laws that cover this, whenever a U.S. citizen is involved. The big one would be Amendment IV to the U.S. Constitution; another would be FISA (under which, the court that issues warrants for FISA investigations has issued more than 19,000 warrants since its inception, and denied ONLY FIVE).
I recall a time when conservatives were very concerned with the rule of law. Seems like such a short time ago…
.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Here’s a chart of Tax Freedom days through 2005. Last year, the average American taxpayer worked through April 17th before he was finished paying taxes. It was May 3 in the year 2000 (that’s in the year two-thousAAAAND! for Conan O’Brian fans).
January 25th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
I find it hard to believe that there is so much misinformation out there. So, let us be clear what we are talking about here.
1) We are at war.
2) The President has the sole Constitutional duty to conduct that war.
3) The U.S. Constitution (or Bill of Rights) does not apply to individuals engaged in war against the United States (an argument can be made that a citizen is protected even if engaged in hostile action).
4) There is NO Constitutional requirement for a warrant to gather war related intelligence.
5) Warrants (Judicial Authority) are used to gather information/evidence in criminal/civil proceedings. If a warrant is not obtained, the evidence is excluded (Exclusionary Rule).
6) The scope of NSA intelligence gathering was restricted to the conversations of those at war with us (with clear point-of-origin outside the U.S.).
Now, how about a reality check. In this information technology age, an enemy may contact an agent here by any number of means (telephone, internet, satellite, etc). If operatives gather intelligence in the field that led them to a conduit of communication, I would expect that they would follow-up on it. At the point it became obvious that such a conduit would be used for criminal proceedings against a U.S. citizen, then I’m sure someone would want to involve judiciary oversight to protect that citizens rights.
It is sad that the product of our educational system does not equip people to know the difference between combat intelligence gathering (do not require warrants) and criminal investigations (require warrants).
For myself, I am not surprised that the NSA has been monitoring calls between those we are at war with to the U.S., and with the fluid nature of war (they call it the “fog of war”) I certainly would have been shocked if they went out to get a warrant to do it. I would have had a serious problem if they had not been doing it (don’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why they need to).
My problem is with whoever leaked the program to the media. Quite frankly, once they are identified I expect that they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I do not fault the NSA or the President for doing the job we elected them to do, to defend this country.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
By the way, is anyone else curious why the “law students” are wearing hoods? Maybe they’ve started a club called the LLL or something: liberal law loonies.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Mick: Here’s a chart of Tax Freedom days through 2005.
Excellent! But the CLAIM was:
“What about all the entitlement programs Leahy has pushed for that makes me have to work from January to May to pay for before I can work a day for myself?”
Break down the entire budget for us if you want to persue a meaningful discussion on this. Thanks. Else, another distraction from the photo you used to set up your strawman. Thanks.
John Farmer: 3) The U.S. Constitution (or Bill of Rights) does not apply to individuals engaged in war against the United States (an argument can be made that a citizen is protected even if engaged in hostile action).
How right you are. However, how do we know that this is, indeed, how this program is being used, when there is no oversight? Clinton claimed to have not had sex “with that woman”; Nixon said he wasn’t a crook. You believe Bush when he says this is necessary — when his own administration and a member of his own party is on the record saying that it’s simply not the case?!?
What kind of un-American “rule of man, not of law” person are you, to so causally dismiss the Fourth Amendment?
.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Well, when someone produces evidence that someone’s “rights” are being violated (outside of wartime intelligence), then by all means let us address the abuse. Until then, great job President Bush!
January 25th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
John Farmer: Well, when someone produces evidence that someone’s “rights” are being violated (outside of wartime intelligence), then by all means let us address the abuse. Until then, great job President Bush!
Gee, John… could you be more disingenuous? What part of NO OVERSIGHT do you not understand?
I find your blind, partisan faith, disturbing, for a supposed American.
Meanwhile, if you want to know who’s NOT telling the truth, read this.
.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Excuse me, what was my strawman again? My question wasn’t intended for a strawman; it is addressed to a particular set of students, pictured in that photograph.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Mick: Excuse me, what was my strawman again?
Responding above with the “tax freedom day” assertion, equating total tax burden with “entitlement programs Leahy has pushed.”
My question wasn’t intended for a strawman; it is addressed to a particular set of students, pictured in that photograph.
Clowning, in other words, since you know that those students aren’t reading your blog. No danger of them responding to a topic they hadn’t engaged, even if they DID read your blog, right?
Typical. Only attacking the safe targets, while talking tough about the ones that can fight back.
.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
How do you know they won’t see it? Such things have happened here before, multiple times.
But nice job covering your rear; it’s nice to have old arguments to fall back on when the new ones don’t quite work out, isn’t it?
I’m going to stop responding to your comments now, which by your definition means any further statements you make will be considered “clowing.”
Cheers.
January 25th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Okay forth ammendment scholars, there is one more issue to throw in the mix here. That the the issue of whether or not national security constitutes exigent circumstances. For those of you not familiar with the concept of exigency, that means that when there is imminent threat to life or destruction of evidence, normal constitutional protections can be overlooked on a case by case basis. For example, an officer goes up to a house and smells what he knows from experience to be a meth lab, the Supreme Court has upheld that he can enter the house without a search warrant because of the risk to public safety a lab presents.
I’m interested to see if anyone will bring up exigency anywhere in this argument. Jurisprudence would support the president if he can produce(if he is challenged by a defendant), in each case, a set of facts that would ammount to probable cause that if he didn’t act immediatly, loss of life or destruction of evidence was imminent.
Of course, where this breaks down is, with the amount of time it takes to do wire tappings and other of these things, is it reasonable to say that the president didn’t have time to secure a warrant?
And as Mr. Farmer pointed out, if we are talking about non-American citizens in an act of war, none of these arguments apply. The president can tap any line he wants to and is able to. And if you’re worried that big brother might be spying on you, take heart. Most phone comanies are going to notice if their lines have been tapped. Evidence would mount quickly against Uncle Sam in any civil rights case.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Jeff: I’m interested to see if anyone will bring up exigency anywhere in this argument. Jurisprudence would support the president if he can produce(if he is challenged by a defendant), in each case, a set of facts that would ammount to probable cause that if he didn’t act immediatly, loss of life or destruction of evidence was imminent.
The argument’s been made. FISA allows for law enforcement to start a wiretap, and get the warrant retroactively within 72 hours (and depending on whether or not we’re considerd officially “during wartime,” FISA allows this period to stretch out to 15 days).
Oddly enough, Sen. Mike DeWine (R - OH) proposed legislation that would have lowered the standards for obtaining a FISA warrant from “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion,” but the Bush administrations DoJ said that wasn’t necessary — that in effect, FISA was working well, as is.
So, it wasn’t an expediency issue; it wasn’t a “red tape” issue. What, then, are we left to surmise?
.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:07 am
[...] Fishkite has a recent post that initiated a discussion of the NSA surveillance and 4th Amendment issues. Amendment IV [...]
January 27th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
I’ll take a swing at that, Just Sayin.
The problem with wiretaps are that they only apply to a single connection, or multiple connections from/to the same device. This is a technologically outdated approach to information gathering. My personal hypothosis is that the NSA is scanning a huge amount of telephone (and maybe other communications) traffic for key characteristics, and then capturing conversations that match those characteristics. This sort of data-mining approach is completely irreconcilable with wiretap authorizations, yet probably needs some sort of authorization to occur.
The administration doesn’t explain this because doing so might notify the terrorists and reduce the effectiveness of the program.
Oh, and as a law student in DC, I’d like to point out that we’re not all Michael Moore wanna-be’s.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
neil — If that’s the case, why doesn’t the GOP-controlled Congress write a law that would make such electronic fishing expeditions legal? After all, James A. Baker, in writing his opinion on Mike DeWine’s proposed legislation to loosen the standards for obtaining FISA warrants, said the DoJ was happy with the FISA statute, as written.
Btw, does anyone here know what happened to the blog of our friend and neighbor, John Farmer?
.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:56 am
[...] The initiation of this discussion originated on Fishkite earlier in the week. If I recall some follow-up comments that included “trusting” the President and other generalities. Let me continue the discussion by saying that I “trust” no branch of government, including the Presidency. In their wisdom, our founders created a system of checks and balances involving three co-equal branches of government power. Each under the Constitution has specific roles and responsibilities. The one under discussion here is the Article II authority of the President to act as Commander-in-Chief in wartime. [...]
March 27th, 2008 at 10:17 am
[...] Just sayin’ hijacked my brief post on social security and accused me of “clowning” four separate [...]