I Spy With My Little Eye
I'm confused by some recent polling numbers I've seen. As a general rule, Americans are against spying on Americans. Also as a genereral rule, Americans are for spying terrorists on US soil. Taken as separate items, both make sense. However, its not like terrorists walk around wearing "Destroy America Now, Ask Me How" baseball caps. The only way to spy on all the terrorsts in America is to spy on all Americans. This is where the two polls cease to make real sense. Everyone's gung-ho on doing what it takes and bending/destroying rules to get terrorists, but no one seems to understand the process. You can't say, "I'm for warrantless wiretaps on them" because to be effective, that means warrantless wiretaps on all. One can certainly make the freedom for safety trade, but I think the terms of that trade should be made clear.
Posts
4 comments:
I'm afraid you have confused "spying" and "policing". In a sense you are correct, to determine who the terrorists are we have to observe the entire population. But this is no different from what the police do. To know which speeders to pull over, they have to observe all the motorists. That's policing and it's a given.
The population is policed to determine who the high risk individuals are. Then those individuals are "spied" on. It is untrue that if we tap likely terrorist phones we have to tap everyone's phone, or even some random sample that includes low risk individuals. This is not the airlines and their moronic "search everyone so we aren't discriminating" policy. This is extremely narrow.
Now, you can still not like it. But at least be more fair in your description of the situation.
This is where it gets fun. I think I do have it right. When the police on are the highway, its public space. When the police are on a stake-out (and when Richard Dreyfus is involved, you know hilarity ensues), its still public space. When they need to go through your private stuff that's a higher degree of investigation, and they need a warrant. That's the trade-off. We give the police this right, in exchange for some sort of oversight , here its judicial decree. Please re-read the Fourth Amendment I posted. Wire-taps clearly fall within that paragraph. No question. The citizens accept that there needs to be law, and enforcement of that law, but they also understand that someone needs to check the powers of government when policing the citizenry. When you don't have that check, you're spying. So I think there is a world of difference between a highway patrol officer checking for speeders and warrantless wire-taps. But kudos to you for sticking with your tried and true. Take a specific point, broaden it out to where it doesn't resemble the original, and then narrow it to another point. It's like a big league pitcher and his 100mph fastball. You know its coming, but you still can't hit it. I thought you were going to go with a Santa analogy. You know, Santa watches everyone, and you like Santa don't you? Or do you hate Santa too?
Now that we've established that we see this in different lights, I have a question. Since you yourself say that no politician tells the whole truth, nor do they stick to their goals, how can you possibly trust that this is "extremely narrow?" I know you have your "GW Rocks Tatoo," but what if Hillary wins, still feel the same way? Or concider that Patriot Act provisions were used to investigate strip clubs. Can you honestly tell me that this is or will stay "narrow." Nothing the feds do is narrow (except for their thinking...POW). Its impossible. To get to "known" terrorists, you have to watch everyone they contact, and to be sure beyond that you have to watch everyone that those people contact. Increasing the scope of a computer program is easy, and justified "to be sure." Thats why the whole of the citizenry is at risk of federal tapping. To call this narrow, and expect it to work is nonsnese. Either it takes in all, or it is doomed to fail. That's the way this works, and it is certainly the way the slippery slope works.
Finally, the "check everyone" airline policy is the only thing that makes sense. If the airline announces that they are not checking anyone under 10 or over 70, I stop flying. Its not discriminating, its good strategy. If you tell the terrorists that you are specifically NOT looking at a certain area or group, they will find a way to take advantage of that gap. People who think otherwise are the same people who allow Japanese ships to land on America in Axis and Allies. Just because you can't see how something can happen, doesn't mean it can't.
I understand your concern for spying with limited over site and as I've said, it's not unreasonable.
"The only way to spy on all the terrorists in America is to spy on all Americans". As an argument against spying this is drivel.
How 'bout "the only way to arrest all the criminals in America is to arrest all Americans" as an argument against policing?
(Oh, never mind...policing and spying are not identical. Avert your eyes before your brain stretches!)
Of course, technically the statements are true, but as arguments for or against anything they are both silly.
How policing and spying are similar (look it up) is that they both proceed by focusing on a high risk subset of the population and not the entire population. That was the point you seemed to miss (perhaps I didn't make it well enough). Now to the point you thought you read: I agree that wire tapping is more of an intrusion than a traffic stop.
Forgive me for not being able to pretend that all people should be afforded the same rights at all times. What was the long term effect of Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus?
I absolutely believe that Hillary Clinton and even John Kerry would use that power to spy on terrorists and not you. Call me crazy.
I get your point that the potential for abuse exists. True. What about the potential for gain? If you only want to focus on the potential losses then get your money out of the stock market. There is a trade off here; a prudent one. I'd rather have two guys in a van giggling while listening to you describe your hairy chest on 1-900-sexytalk than 3,000 dead Americans because we didn't see it coming.
The Axis and Allies comment was a low blow.
Before anything else, pleaase read the post on the Fourth Amendment I put up and tell me if you think Bush's wire-taps are constitional. Not if you personally think its ok, but if you think (this isn't a trial, so you don't have to "know") they conform to the Fourth Amendment. Look I get from prior discussions about crime, drugs, and threats that the Fourth is not a very important part of the document for you, but I think its one of the biggies.
I agree that the long term harm from suspending HC is just about non-existant (except that it set a president for future suspension proponents like yourself to argue for the same). But two things, one, Congress did declare "War," during the Civil War, no such thing against the terrorists. Two, do you advocate gathering all the Muslims in this country up and putting them in camps. After all, what was the long term damage of the Japanese internment camps during WW2?
What you don't seem to get is that terrorism does not have an "end date." Any right we give up is likely permanent. It is also likely to lead to further erosion. I'm going to try one of you mind bending techniques. Let me know if I get this right.
Surrendering our rights to the Feds for the hope of greater protection (recall that there existed sufficient information pre 9/11 to thwart the attack, it was a matter of understanding the information, not gathering it-this is not a slam on Bush, nor is it a blame) is much like how we give up autonomy when a caring family member wants to protect us. Not neccessarily a mom or dad, the don't go to the same parties we do. Probably not cousin, as what do they know about us. Couldn't be a sister, we protect them. If you little brother protects you, you're a wimp. No, it seems like a brother though, probably a big brother. Yeah, that feels right.
In the Soviet Union, crime was low, drug use was almost non-existant, and when terrorists were bombing disco's in Germany and taking US hostiges, they were leaving the USSR alone. Soviet citizens were safe from foreign harm. This sounds like a utopia for you.
Speaking of, why are you more afraid now than during the Cold War when, to borrow a line for War Games, the threat was "global thermal nuclear war?" Why are we so willing to give up more freedom now, than then?
Finally, I never said Kerry or Clinton wouldn't do the same, I asked if you were comfortable giving them those same powers.
Post a Comment