Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 838 Editor's Choice: 2
-
j.m. greysky
[Read the article: The strong and tough Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When the Democrats are truly in power - which right now they are not - then we can hold their feet to the fire and hope for a wholly reimagined foreign policy that does not rely overly and inappropriately on curtailment of domestic civil liberties.
I'm afraid this is wishful thinking on the level of saying "the surge is working, just give it another six months (Freidman Unit)!"
Color me unconvinced that it's great political strategy to broadcast weakness by capitulating to administration demands to curb civil liberties and endorse its previously illegal behavior right now, on the mere possibility that there will be a terrible attack, and the even more remote possibility that Democrats will not be blamed for it simply because they rolled over on FISA.
If the Democrats' overpaid consultants came up with that strategy, they hardly deserve a job at Wendy's.
-
Glenn
[Read the article: The strong and tough Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm still travelling, with a lot of obligations, so I still haven't had time to really dig into these statutory issues with the new bill, but from what I understand, Russ Feingold has seen the FISA decision, and does recognize that there is this "gap" -- whether in fact or arguably -- and that there was a fix needed. Without seeing the FISA decision, all we can do is rely upon others who have as to what it says, and Feingold is -- on this issue -- one of the few trustworthy voices.
I fully understand how busy you are right now, which is why I put the query out to anyone who could answer (though I'm always happy when you weigh in).
The Feingold card is a very powerful card, indeed, and invocation of just about any name other than his wouldn't give my doubts the slightest pause. Still, when I read the statute itself, I have to think that the FISA decision must have focused more narrowly on foreign-to-foreign communications in which persons in the US were also involved. Otherwise, I would seriously question the correctness of the ruling, and would expect the proper response should have been to appeal that ruling rather than take a wrench to FISA.
At any rate, we seem to be in solid agreement that, whatever the FISA Court ruling, the current changes go far, far beyond any supposed "gap" concerning foreign-to-foreign communications.
-
do you shop at the "gap?"
[Read the article: The strong and tough Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is probably the best explanation of the secret FISA Court decision that ostensibly pronounced the alleged "gap" for tapping foreign-to-foreign communications:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/more-known-unkn.html
"Basket warrants" for all communications involving one person in a foreign country, without knowing where the other party or parties to the communication are located. The grounds for requiring a warrant, apparently according to one FISA Court judge, being that there is at least the possibility that a person in the US could be subject to the intercept.
So it is still misleading for all these politicians to have claimed this was all about a "gap" in the ability to eavesdrop on conversations occurring solely between or among people in foreign countries. After all, this casts the debate in far more favorable terms than saying it's unacceptable to need a court order to tap communications between a person abroad and someone that could possibly be in the US (and could possibly be a US citizen).
It also comes down, again, to blanket surveillance - "General Warrants," if you will, which the Founders expressly opposed due to their abuses in the hands of the unaccountable Crown. This new statutory legitimization of blanket surveillance of multiple communications will probably set up a Supreme Court case on the 4th Amendment. Is the Bush administration counting on its new conservative majority on the Court to bless its activities and cut yet another swath from our privacy rights?
-
which is the "party of fear?"
[Read the article: The strong and tough Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Greysky:
What Democrats *add* is the politics of hope, not fear. That is, increased/enhanced use of diplomacy, negotiating, etc. Not just the neocon - use brute force, and if brute force doesn't work then use more brute force.
-
I am keeping my fingers crossed that one of the Democratic presidential candidates will win in November '08. But I don't think it's inevitable. All it would take is one domestic terrorist attack and all bets are off as to who would be elected president in '08.
The Democratic base is energized. I don't want to see Democrats do anything to energize the *Republican* base.
This is very, very interesting. In the first paragraph above, you assert that the Democrats are the party of hope, not fear. Then, in the very next paragraph, you show that this is precisely the opposite, and that you believe in that philosophy. You tremble about the possibility of another attack, and that "all bets are off" for the election if an attack occurs. You fear - so intensely I can nearly smell it through this website - that bold moves by the Democrats might energize the Republican Party.
In short, your every instinct, like so many Democrats, is to think first of how the Republicans might spin a potential Democratic course of action, and to speculate on all the worst-case scenarios that might make the Democrats look bad.
Republicans may be the Party of Invoking Fear, but your approach is in line with the Party of Being Afraid.
-
shooter
[Read the article: The strong and tough Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How does that distinction hold up in the face of decisions to allow searches of laptops at the border without a warrant?
Cite them. From the highest court(s) possible, please. I am at home and don't have my own Westlaw account - and besides, the onus is on you to cite those cases.