Comment response
I am going to respond to 2 points only from the comments from BlackCross at this time.
The first counter point is
"Warrants are unnessessary when the goal is gathering military intelligence. Unless you (or "your fellow Americans") have been talking to known Al-Qaeda or other terrorist sympathizers overseas, odds are your phone hasn't been wiretapped by the administration or the DoD. Oh, and one court agreed with you - and the judge should have recused herself. http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/judge-had-conflict-of-interest-in-wiretap-case "
To that I would respond simply. It is impossible to gather military intelligence on American citizens. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=military+intelligence&x=44&y=20 ). So the "goal of gathering military intelligence" is completely fallicious. Secondly, the classic argument of "if you haven't been doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" is equally bogus. Simply because without warrants there is no check on who and why is being wiretapped.
There are two groupings of law that pertain to wiretapping that are important here. The first is Ammendment 4 to the US Constitution. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/) Which, while originally ruled that it did NOT pertain to wiretapping, under currently rulings and statutes does. In Katz v. United States the SUPREME COURT (should they have recused themselves?) found that to determine if an electronic survelance was reasonoable or not could only be determined though the warrant process.
Secondly is FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) law. (info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act , you'll have to look the full act up yourself if you wish to get deep sleep). FISA law is extremely clear that a warrant is necessary when dealing with US citizens. And to counter the "that's not fast enough" argument that so many use. FISA allows for wiretapping to occur up to 72 hours BEFORE you obtain a warrant. So you can tap whn it's very important and get the clearence after the fact. A FISA court is also a secure court in that it's results do not necessarily have to be published. This maintains national security.
Also, FISA courts have only rejected 5 warrant requests in it's almost 30 year existence. (it was finally enacted in 1978). It's founding has a lot of roots in the Watergate scandal brought fourth by Richard M Nixon to prevent abuse of power by the executive. It's a reinforcement of the concept od checks and balance that is so sorely lacking in this nation now.
So given all the tools above, what is the argument for NOT getting a warrant. I've never said that WIRETAPPING is a problem. That is a very useful tool to those who would harm us. However, as a US citizen you have rights that protect you from unwarranted (perfect word for this argument) suspicion. What would give the right to the government to wiretap me if I make a call to Iraq... and if you say that's not what they are doing. I'd ask them to prove it, by getting a warrant.
The other point I would argue at this time was.
"You would place physical interrogation techniques in the same classification as cutting people up for fun? What would you define as torture?"
Unequivocabbly YES!!! They are exactly the same thing, harming people who are not immediately threatening you. I have never understood how any christian person can advocate the harming of another human for purposes other than immediate self defense. Can you honestly look at me and say that Jesus Christ would look at this and support it. (graphic link... pics of Abu Ghraib). If so, explain.
And that doesn't even begin to go into the simple fact that torture doesn't work. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html . (go ahead and say it's a "liberal" source. I don't care. The quotes from the military personel are what I want to draw attention too. They are who they are and said what they said).
That's all I have for today. I have to get to work.
The first counter point is
"Warrants are unnessessary when the goal is gathering military intelligence. Unless you (or "your fellow Americans") have been talking to known Al-Qaeda or other terrorist sympathizers overseas, odds are your phone hasn't been wiretapped by the administration or the DoD. Oh, and one court agreed with you - and the judge should have recused herself. http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/judge-had-conflict-of-interest-in-wiretap-case "
To that I would respond simply. It is impossible to gather military intelligence on American citizens. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=military+intelligence&x=44&y=20 ). So the "goal of gathering military intelligence" is completely fallicious. Secondly, the classic argument of "if you haven't been doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" is equally bogus. Simply because without warrants there is no check on who and why is being wiretapped.
There are two groupings of law that pertain to wiretapping that are important here. The first is Ammendment 4 to the US Constitution. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/) Which, while originally ruled that it did NOT pertain to wiretapping, under currently rulings and statutes does. In Katz v. United States the SUPREME COURT (should they have recused themselves?) found that to determine if an electronic survelance was reasonoable or not could only be determined though the warrant process.
Secondly is FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) law. (info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act , you'll have to look the full act up yourself if you wish to get deep sleep). FISA law is extremely clear that a warrant is necessary when dealing with US citizens. And to counter the "that's not fast enough" argument that so many use. FISA allows for wiretapping to occur up to 72 hours BEFORE you obtain a warrant. So you can tap whn it's very important and get the clearence after the fact. A FISA court is also a secure court in that it's results do not necessarily have to be published. This maintains national security.
Also, FISA courts have only rejected 5 warrant requests in it's almost 30 year existence. (it was finally enacted in 1978). It's founding has a lot of roots in the Watergate scandal brought fourth by Richard M Nixon to prevent abuse of power by the executive. It's a reinforcement of the concept od checks and balance that is so sorely lacking in this nation now.
So given all the tools above, what is the argument for NOT getting a warrant. I've never said that WIRETAPPING is a problem. That is a very useful tool to those who would harm us. However, as a US citizen you have rights that protect you from unwarranted (perfect word for this argument) suspicion. What would give the right to the government to wiretap me if I make a call to Iraq... and if you say that's not what they are doing. I'd ask them to prove it, by getting a warrant.
The other point I would argue at this time was.
"You would place physical interrogation techniques in the same classification as cutting people up for fun? What would you define as torture?"
Unequivocabbly YES!!! They are exactly the same thing, harming people who are not immediately threatening you. I have never understood how any christian person can advocate the harming of another human for purposes other than immediate self defense. Can you honestly look at me and say that Jesus Christ would look at this and support it. (graphic link... pics of Abu Ghraib). If so, explain.
And that doesn't even begin to go into the simple fact that torture doesn't work. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html . (go ahead and say it's a "liberal" source. I don't care. The quotes from the military personel are what I want to draw attention too. They are who they are and said what they said).
That's all I have for today. I have to get to work.
posted by Voodoo at 9:27 AM
1 Comments:
Wiretaps:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5114&search=wiretaps
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5092
"Torture / Interrogation:"
You didn't answer my question.
"What would you define as torture?"
Playing the "moral equivalancy" card by equalizing the treatment of prisoners at Abu Gharib before and after the former regieme's hold on the place is...disturbing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison
Please note: "Under the government of Saddam Hussein the facility was under the control of the Directorate of General Security (Al-Amn al-Amm) and was the site of the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners—up to 4,000 prisoners are thought to have been executed there in 1984 alone. During the 1990s human rights organization Amnesty International documented repeated events where as many as several hundred inmates were executed in a single episode."
Plus, certain forms of physical interrogation - sleep deprevation, for example - have been successful. While I'm not advocating what happened at Abu Gharib at the hands of some idiots in US uniforms (who have recieved the just punishment for their stupidity), certain interrogation techniques are definately valid forms of gaining information.
>> I have never understood how any christian person can advocate the harming of another human for purposes other than immediate self defense.
If they have declared an intent to kill my countrymen or innocent people, have shown a willingness to do so, and may possess information critical to preventing such occurances, I'd think it'd be my Christian duty to gain that information from them. I don't believe in hacking off limbs or beating people with rubber hoses, but playing Cher at disgustingly loud volumes to make sure they can't sleep I don't mind at all.
Besides, it'll get more Cher CDs down to Cuba, and farther away from me.
Hmmm...
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5484&search=interrogation
Post a Comment
<< Home