<p>I’d like to act suprised…but I just can’t quite make it happen.</p>
<p>The following is from a friend who works as a librarian and is ex-military with an interest in security and legal issues. Posted by permission.</p>
<p>=========</p>
<p>If by some chance I knew of harms due to the application of the USAPATRIOT act at my library, I could not tell. Doing so would result in severe prison time. In fact, it’s been pointed out to me I <em>COULD</em> become identified as an enemy - an “unlawful combatant”.</p>
<p>There is an interesting lawsuit ongoing in the federal courts right now from the American Library Association with the ACLU providing most of the legal services. It’s something of a “hands tied” lawsuit as it challenges the library gag clause as written, but the bringers of the suit are doing so as “speculation”. The technicalities of the law are such that evidence of harm is in itself a criminal act and so would be challenged as inadmissible - so have the government’s attorneys stated. If that suit is won by the ALA/ACLU, there is good reason to believe that there will be several incidents exposed.</p>
<p>It’s an interesting application of the catch 22. Is the silence regarding harms due to no harms occurring, or is it because those harmed have real reason to believe more significant harm in the event of speaking up?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Felix Frankfurter, on the seizure of the steel mills by order of Harry Truman during the Korean War</p>
<p>
This</a> is now officially a hoax.
<a href=“http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-05/a01lo719.htm[/url]”>http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-05/a01lo719.htm</a></p>
<p>Bandit, please see my post #182. The fact that this particular incident was a hoax is no time for self-congratulations. </p>
<p>Beyond the issue the specific issue of library searches that can not even be disclosed, defended, or anything else, there is the broader issue of the attitude of this President, neatly summarized in the words of conservative columnist Steve Chapman:
</code></pre>
<p>Hubris, my friends, hubris. The rest of you, too.</p>
<p>Why does a fact become a gloat when it goes against your views? As usual, much was made of the original story, and almost nothing of the fact that it was all lies. If you have any proof at all, trot it out.</p>
<p>Bandit, read the post. It is impossible for there to be “proof” without violating the law. Because of the law, offering evidence of harm would itself be inadmissible. </p>
<p>Truly an “Alice in Blunderland” situation.</p>
<p>In reading this forum, I am struck by the similarities between the pro-wire tap rhetoric and that of those who supported the inturnment of thousands of Japanese and Itailian Americans. </p>
<p>There are multiple other examples of the exploitation of a fearful population to restrict their freedoms, but I chose this example to show that concern for personal liberty should not be a partisan issue.</p>
<p>Look at it this way guys… if you are on the 110th story of a sky scraper and you know you’re about to die because a plance just crashed into it, but it could have been stopped with wire tapping, would you have so many doubts about it then? BTW, I’m not a parent…</p>
<p>Why, sure! Just as provided for by law, and doesn’t even require a warrant beforehand. That’s a non-issue, and the President knew it.</p>
<p>The issue has to do with the President’s idea of his prerogatives (if he has any “ideas” at all), not his ability to wire tap or prevent planes crashing into buildings.</p>
<p>Expediency in the name of national security is used by every totalitarian regime. It was used by the Nazis, it was used by the Soviets, it’s used today in several countries…think about it and you can put together a list. </p>
<p>As Mini points out, there exists a due process in accordance with our principles. The president has decided that he can target American citizens if he alone believes there’s a need, without any review by the courts or the Congress. Even were I to believe that this president were the wisest, most benevolent ruler…hmm, maybe he’ll adopt the title Most Benevolent…I would not trust him with these powers. For <em>this</em> president, even more so.</p>
<p>Surrender of principles in an expedient rush for security will leave us with neither principles nor security. We did not win the Cold War, imnsvhgdo, to become a mirror of the Soviet state, where the blustering of the words “national security” would be used to control the people, the press, justify secret prisons, justify suspension of civili rights, etc.</p>
<p>
Yes, well, that list would include every president since Jimmy Carter, were we to limit ourselves to FISA-era presidents. Expanding that boundary, we would soon find that virtually every president in war-time has made expedient use of his presidential powers to protect the nation…that list would include, but not be limited to, Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR, and Truman. You need stop wetting your pants over this. Most of your fellow citizens appreciate what’s being done on their behalf, and are sophisticated enough to understand the difference between “totalitarianism” and an effective counter-terrorism strategy. Sheath your anti-Bush sword and be thankful.</p>
<p>Ah, but Driver - it used to be we knew when we were “in wartime”, who we were at war with, and could tell when the war was over. Excesses could be ended, even corrected. The Japanese-Americans eventually were let out of the internment camps. A war on “terror” has no beginning, no end, no identifiable opponents, and no limits. No nation has declared war on the U.S. There will never be a surrender, or armistice. The “War on Terror” will be “over” when the government says it is, and no sooner. (Ever read 1984?) I recognize that you’ve been programmed to attack anyone who questions the infinite wisdom, strength, and benevolence of the current administration, but are you completely oblivious to the consequence of saying the rules don’t apply in wartime, and “wartime” is whatever the government says it is?</p>
<p>
There’s an element of truth to this, as far as it goes. Welcome to the world of asymmetrical warfare. 9/11 showed that the Islamofascists could bring it to our home, and we’re going to have to deal with that reality. Definitely a new frontier, for us, and I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t pay attention. However, we need to be aware that this is a different kind of war, and respond accordingly, which I think this administration is doing quite well.</p>
<p>There is no justification for having a President issue secret orders to tapping a private conversation without alerting the judicial branch of government. Secret police, secret prisons, secret trials…not anything to be proud of, and in no way does it make me or mine feel safer.</p>
<p>This is not the way to teach democracy to the world.</p>
<p>Yes, I believe it is unconstitutional, even coming from the freest nation on earth, supposedly.</p>
<p>There’s an interesting survey that was released by Rasmussen Reports yesterday. Only 23% of the American people believe that the National Security Agency should NOT be allowed to intercept conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. 23%! In addition only 26% believe that President Bush is the first President to authorize a program for intercepting those same types of telephone conversations. </p>
<p>This is not a winning issue for the Dems which explains why most of the Democratic leadership is avoiding it. The only ones who want to run with it are those on the fringe who continue to try mightily to find something - anything - that will finally be the issue that brings down this Presidency. </p>
<p>It ain’t gonna happen, folks.</p>
<p>Certainly not if it’s spun the way you just spun it, Browninfall! How about putting it this way: “Should the President be able to wiretap anyone he wants without a court order or anyone else having the right to review who he’s wiretapping and why?”</p>
<p>I love the way the loyal defenders of the Bush always cite the issue as being limited to abuses of the rights of “terrorists.” Assuming the conclusion is always a pretty good way to win an argument, isn’t it? The reason people are concerned about the recent revelations is because we’re not stupid enough to believe that a government which successfully assumes the authority to spy on people with no oversight will limit its spying to “terrorists” or “communists” or other officially evil people. History - including fairly recent history - demonstrates that that level of restraint is quickly abandoned.</p>
<p>Is it spinning if you basically use the EXACT words that were used in the survey. Here was the question posed by Rasmussen: “Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?” Only 23% said NO. Pretty simple and direct if you ask me. It looks like quite a few people here are out of the mainstream with the American people on this one.</p>
<p>Most Americans understand that if you can prevent another World Trade Center catastrophe by doing this sort of thing, then they’re OK with it. Most Americans understand too that it’s not Barbra Streisand who’s being bugged - unless, of course, she’s on Osama’s call list.</p>
<p>The survey apparently did NOT ask if people believe the president should be able to do this WITHOUT a warrant or supervision by the court. Thus the survey is deficient. It does NOT prove that the American people back the president in this. Someone who believes the NSA should be able to wiretap following FISA restrictions would also answer YES to that question. It is not the wiretap that is the problem; it is doing it OUTSIDE the law.</p>