Terrorism: Can't it be effectively fought within constitutional limits ?

[steve2470]

The argument of the right wing seems to be that the Constitution and the necessity to obtain warrants to conduct wiretaps, etc. is a major hindrance to combatting terrorism. I am not in law enforcement so I have no expert knowledge in this. Can't we put enough dollars into having judges on duty 24/7/365 to approve the warrants ? I cannot believe that the "terrorists" move so quickly that a judge on duty cannot be called and a warrant obtained. Am I naiive here ? I'm sure getting warrants is a "pain in the ass" to law enforcement officers in a big hurry to catch the bad guys, but the pain in the ass seems to be bearable. What do you think ?

[FormerRepublican]

1. I think the guys at the top are just on a power trip and what they're...

...doing has NOTHING to do with what needs to be done to fight terrorism.

How can getting cases thrown out of court help fight terror?

:shrug:

[unblock]

9. you're right. they're all about embezzlement.

everything they do is about steering money into the hands of their corporate sponsors.

the tax cuts are payouts for their ultra rich sponsors.
the no-bid contracts are payouts for their defense industry sponsors.
the war on oil countries is a payout to the domestic energy companies sponsors.
the whole tort reform crap is a payout to manufacturers of defective products sponsors.
the war on drugs is a payout to the private prison business sponsors.
the faith-based crap is a payout to the right wing church sponsors.
the school vouchers thing is a payout to the private school sponsors.

there's hardly a damn thing they do that doesn't make money for at least one of their corporate sponsors. railing on abortion is just about the only thing i can think of that they do that doesn't have a clear profit motive.

[FogMachine]

2. One of the arguments is throw away cell phones

which the terrorists are using, like go mobile or whatever. they use them once or twice and pitch 'em. NSA may only have minutes to tap these guys or they may lose an important lead.

But I do think there has to be a better way than not getting any warrants at all, like maybe a short term open warrant that lasts for a day or so and the judge has to renew it based on merit, etc. JMHO

[Warren Stupidity]

7. They can get wiretap warrants on individuals now.

The throw away phone is a problem but it is not a warrant problem. No excuse not to get a warrant for a real suspect. The problem of course is that they do not have real suspects.

[Dunvegan]

8. They can still tap instantly...they just have to within 48 hours...

...say what they did, and ask FISA for a retroactive subpoena to cover the insta-tap.

FISA doesn't hold back law enforcement a nanosecond. The government doesn't have to think about contacting FISA when a national security dispose-a-phone situation needs addressing.

What do you think all those Executive branch lawyers and advisors are there for? They can file about any tap within 48 hours after and be snugly within the law, while protecting national security.

And everyone knows FISA has a 99+% after-the-fact approval rate for legal, critical, and important taps.

But...if you're tapping congresspeople or your political opponent...or bloggers...or whistleblowers...THEN when you go to FISA 48 hours later, they'll lay the correct legal slap-down on you for breaking the law, and what you did won't be covered by any "super-secret" privilege. Next thing you know, you're in court trying to defend Watergate-like invasions. Even then, they'd probably let everything but the most egregious and illegal taps slide, because they tend to give every possible benefit to the Feds.

If your tap was even vaugely reasonable because a Fed or a Foggy Bottom spook had a whisp of a worry, FISA will 99% of the time rubber-stamp it and respect the secrecy level required. We're talking about Federal judges and closed chambers here.

The "We need to act in a heartbeat" argument for thumbing their noses at FISA is a total crock. Federal law enforcement NEVER has to ask first. But see how White House lying is taken as truth?

What part of "FISA allows for tapping instantly/now/whenever without asking" anytime the Feds need any sort of real security-oriented tap is hard to understand?

FISA is flexible enough to allow for the Feds to utterly ignore them for 48 hours while they do whatever they want...but FISA and their judges ARE there to check AFTER the fact as oversight to make sure you didn't break the law in a really ugly blatent manner.

The ONLY reason to spin all this hooey is to run scores of wildly illegal wiretaps with no record. Period.

[FogMachine]

10. That sounds fair to me

[sandnsea]

14. Patriot Act changed that

So that the person is traced and it transfers across a variety of telecommunications devices. That was part of the purpose of it.

[Dunvegan]

17. I'm sorry...just a little lost...the USA PATRIOT Act changed...

...what in particular? I just didn't understand precisely what "changed that" means.

Thanks.

[sandnsea]

21. Throw away cell phones

The Patriot Act changed the laws so that the tap is more applied to the person so that people who toss cell phones can still be tracked when they get new ones, stuff like that.

[Avalux]

3. Yes.

Remember what Ben said:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

I'd rather live free and risk attack than give up my rights for artificial (and it is) protection. The war on terror is just an excuse for a power grab anyway. Anyone who believes the wiretaps are effective in finding terrorists and therefore keeping us safe is deluded.

[unblock]

4. two centuries and many, many wars are simply no match for 19 terrorists.

19 terrorists was all it took to prove just how wrong and short-sighted and unwise our founders were. they were clearly traitors, one and all, setting america up for the big fall by tying the hands of the executive branch and leaving the nation vulnerable to people with brown skin.

thank god that george w. bush was president on 9/11. i shudder to think what weak-on-crime america-haters like washington or jefferson would have done. they probably would have sued or something.

:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:

[varkam]

5. My thought is this: terrorism cannot be fought. Period.

At least not the way we're fighting it. The way we're fighting it (with bombs and bullets), it's just breeding more hatred and more terrorists. For every Iraqi kid with a bomb strapped to his chest we gun down, three more are ready to take his place.

[FogMachine]

11. Education is the key to fighting terrorism and islamic fundamentalism

[varkam]

12. Amen brother, and welcome to DU!

:toast:

[sandnsea]

15. That's just silly

It's one thing to push for a more enlightened long term strategy, but it's another to say you don't do anything to try and infiltrate existing terrorist groups and stop attacks. That's like saying just stop fighting crime.

[varkam]

16. Perhaps I didn't make my point clear enough

or you're misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is that the way that we're fighting terrorism, when we bust up 1 cell there's going to be 3 more up and running. This is not because we're using violence, but because we're trying to fight fire with *only* fire. If we really want to fight terrorism, then we should try to ask what the cause of it is, and attempt to treat that as opposed to just resorting to military action (which I do think is necessary, but it won't solve anything on it's own).

[sandnsea]

20. It's important to word it correctly

I agree with what you say. I do think it's important to preface the need to do more to build bridges and marginalize fanatics with the willingness to use force for self-defense when necessary. The whole "serve them with a lawsuit" line of bs, you know the drill.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. There is no backlog at FISA.

They are lying when they say that there is an urgency problem that requires them to go around FISA. That law already allows a 72 hour grace period. There is no indication of overload. They can already get a wiretap warrant on an individual, not a specific number. They no longer need a new warrant everytime the phone gets replaced.

You are naive here. You think that the administration has some real problem with monitoring actual suspects. They don't. They want to monitor people randomly, people who are not suspects, people who there is no way any honest court would approve a warrant for, as the constitution requires some actual reason for searching people. They are lying, deliberately lying, when they say that they are only monitoring terrorist suspects.

[Dunvegan]

18. The Executive wants to stop ANY oversight. Period.

There's no problem with insta-taps.

The problem is the Executive wants to tap citizens and politicians and and private citizens and what-all without any oversight ever ever ever.

If there were even just a 1% possibly a wiretap was (72 hours ago) of a terrorist suspect, FISA would give them a wave of their wand and a full pass in secret session.

FISA would NOT give them a pass for wiretapping a political opponent, every single Quaker, or every American citizen it was techonologically possible to tap en masse, et. al.

[pacco]

13. Who's the terrorist?

‘Terrorism is the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear’ <1>.

‘Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause,’ Britain Terrorism Act 2000.

‘All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,’ Article 2(4) UN Charter.

(clip)

Yet the line persists among Westerners, Americans in particular, that the US and its allies are on a “mission” to “teach” Iraqis “democracy” and “freedom.” Most people are aware that this falsehood is a masked Western extremism. It is the enemy of democracy and freedom. Western extremism is not only destroying Iraq for no reason whatsoever, but also perpetuating violence around the world. It is time to demand the immediate end to international terrorism against the Iraqi people and pay reparations for the crimes committed against the nation of Iraq.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_602.shtml

[LynnTheDem]

19. Of course. Terrorism is a CRIME. It requires POLICE WORK.

NOT violating any Constitutions or persons' rights. NOT invasions & occupations, which only help create more terrorists.

POLICE WORK.

America knocking off the state-sponsored terrorism it has sponsored for decades and still does sponsor would be a help, too.

[Dunvegan]

22. Police Work. Old fashioned police work. You've got that right.

The PTB just want to filter every thought and written and spoken word of every American citizen like a whale filtering krill just to keep an eye on who's on to their crap, and how much they might know.