Comments on: Whose Civil Liberties am I Protecting?

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:58:51 +0000

I for one think the intelligience community has plenty of tools to do the job with GWB circumventing the processes for protecting the rights of the innocent. He does this stuff and then says “Trust Me”. Not on your life! I voted for him twice to my embarrassment and I wouldn’t trust him any further than I could throw him with one arm. Beware people who say “Trust Me”!

By: BobH

BobH — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:59:19 +0000

Mark: My point had nothing to do with the relative merits of terrorists and governments.

By: Turuk

Turuk — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:59:11 +0000

I fear more the terrorists, for the ever-lasting easy justification they provide for any state power expansion…

By: markm

markm — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 16:18:04 +0000

Bob:
The most ever killed by terrorists in one day: almost 3,000 (9/11/2001)
The most civilians ever killed by democratic governments, using conventional weapons, without a valid military reason in one night: at least 25,000 (Dresden, Germany, February 13-14, 1945.
The total death toll from terrorism in the last century: as far as I can figure it, about 5,000, certainly less than 10,000.
The total death toll from unrestrained governments in the last century: Soviet Russia >50 million, Communist China >70 million, Nazi Germany 20 million, the Japanese Empire (no idea - mostly they killed little brown people where no one was keeping score). Then there are the genocide of the Armenians in Turkey, genocides in Croatia, Serbia, and Kosovo, and various African genocides and other conflicts, some of which are still going on.

So which is more to be feared, terrorists or governments?

By: BobH

BobH — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 16:50:27 +0000

As a long-time reader, I find myself in agreement with your views about 90% of the time. The pattern of disagreement shows that the 10% consists almost entirely of national security/defense issues.

I'm well aware of the quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin to the effect that those who are willing to trade some freedom for some security deserve neither. While I'm a great admirer of Ben's, I'm afraid he'll have to go on disapproving of me, since I am perfectly willing to make such a trade-off, and in fact consider it incredibly naive to think that reasonable compromises would not be needed.

Understand that this is a general comment. What constitutes "reasonable" and whether this particular case fits that definition are other matters.

By: alene

alene — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 14:47:57 +0000

I'd present two distinctions for consideration.
1. Intelligence vs. investigation
For example, data-mining might proceed from seizure of the computer and other records of an identified terrorist. If that info cache contains US contacts (telephone numbers, internet meeting places), simply following the web of contacts, without viewing content, may in itself discern nodes of interaction which set suspicious antennae aquiver. Such suspicion might even constitute probable cause for further investigation. Should we rule out the first step? Should we rule out, in subsequent investigation, the the information which raised the suspicions (intelligence), because it was, by its nature, warrantless, having no specific target?
2. In matters criminal, we have created all manner of protections on the underlying consensus that it is better that ten lawbreakers go free than that one innocent be wrongly convicted. Nevertheless, some innocents suffer; we do our fallible best. Is the calculus the same when the context is not "crime" but terrorism? I note the difference in the aims of criminal prosecution--to invoke consequences for an act already done, not incidentally to remove that actor from taking further criminal acts--and the object of intelligence gathering on terrorist suspects--to prevent the (criminal) act from occurring.

Maybe the paradigms are different?

By: Ahmed

Ahmed — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:41:36 +0000

Our debate topic this year has to do with the authority of the federal government to search without probable cause. I will be sure to point out the fallacies used by our opponents. Nice entry.

By: T J Sawyer

T J Sawyer — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:06:17 +0000

I can't help but wonder if the real problem behind the NSA monitoring issues is simply the inability of laws and policies to keep up with technology. I certainly hope that NSA has the capability of scanning, sniffing and snooping through all calls into the U.S. from every external source. How might the agency properly ask congress for permission to look through all calls from all Al Kaida related numbers to anyone in the U.S. browsing for the words "do it" or "go for it" etc. etc.?

If you have ever worked in a large corportation, nevermind a government agency, picture the meeting to put together that request!

I have no expectation of privacy anytime I pick up a cellphone - ask Newt Gingrich about that.

I certainly have no expectation of privacy on the Internet or over the phone network. Ever talk to anyone who worked behind the frames in a telephone switching station?

I have no expectation of privacy in my financial transactions. Are you aware of what data collection agencies not to mention credit bureaus know about you? Why should the people we pay to defend us not have free access to the information that "bad guys" have put into that data pile?

What if Al Kaida has people meeting regularly at one of your campgrounds. Do you really object to FBI/CIA/NSA running their suspect list past your reservation database?

True, the lives versus liberties argument does invoke a false dilemma. Perhaps people should phrase it more like this:
What do I fear more - that my granddaughter will grow up under Sharia or that some spook's computer in Washington will read this post before it ever reaches your website and flag it for review because it contains the words Al Kaida and financial?

More power to the spooks!

By: ks

ks — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 02:46:42 +0000

What are your views on civil liberties of people who have served sentence? Views on Megan’s law?

By: Max Lybbert

Max Lybbert — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:02:25 +0000

Thinking about the logical fallacy involved, I can list three candidates:

* strawman (as already mentioned);
* loaded terms/prejudicial language;
* false dilemma (you either want American lives or civil liberties for terrorists).

I think false dilemma fits best.