“TH, we aren’t seeing a ” heavy handed ” infringement on our ” basic rights.” Can you honestly say you’ve experienced even a minute impact on your everyday life as a result of government actions, in the name of post 9/11 security?”

In Canada, to date, MikeH, I agree that we have not yet seen much to worry about. Stockwell day, last week, however, has tried to float the national security card registration idea out there. As I said in the post, one policy at a time is how this stuff gets rammed down our throats.

In the US, it is a different case and there are plenty of documented infractions on people’s life and liberty in the name of security. Sheesh, I heard a spokesman for the Bush whitehouse on CNN the other day discussing how the President must continue to authorize wiretaps without a warrant because there are about 300,000 terrorist suspects in the US. I think that number is pure bullshit.

And I figured you would be the one to call me on the Customs agents with guns thingy. To be fair and honest, of course arming our customs officers is not an infringement of our basic rights. It is however evidence of a creeping police state kind of mentality that so often goes hand in hand with security issues.

I should point out for the record, TH, that I’m ambivalent about our Customs people having sidearms. It seems prudent to arm them, given the nature of their work, but I’ve never heard of any of our customs agents being murdered. I’m also aware that many of the customs officers don’t want to be armed. In any event, good to see you don’t believe this issue is evidence of a rollback of civil rights.

>>”In Canada, to date, MikeH, I agree that we have not yet seen much to worry about. Stockwell day, last week, however, has tried to float the national security card registration idea out there.”

Yeah, I know. But I’m not convinced that this is a hard right conspiracy, since the idea originated with the Liberals, and enjoys a fair bit of bi-partisan support among MPs. I’m not in favour of the ID cards either, but I’m not worried about my personal freedom being impacted by them. It’s more offensive than anything. Being a number is degrading enough.

>>”In the US, it is a different case and there are plenty of documented infractions on people’s life and liberty in the name of security. Sheesh, I heard a spokesman for the Bush whitehouse on CNN the other day discussing how the President must continue to authorize wiretaps without a warrant because there are about 300,000 terrorist suspects in the US. I think that number is pure bullshit.”

I didn’t see that 300,000 figure, TH, but I would agree it’s bullshit. If there were that many suspects, something other than 9/11 would have happened by now, even if it were only smaller scale attacks.

There’s still too much we don’t know about the wiretapping controversy yet, before we decide it’s an egregious case of violation of civil rights.

I’ve seen much conflicting information about the nature of the program. I’ve seen it characterized as a big electronic net, filtering all phone and e-mail traffic for keywords. I’ve also seen individuals in the intelligence community dispute that.

There’s also evidence out there that this was going on before Bush was elected, through the NSA’s Echelon computer/surveillance network. Not only that, but Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand are partners with the U.S. in relation to Echelon, and were allegedly listening in on their citizens as well.

As with other controversial issues involving state intrusion into our privacy, intent has alot to do with my position on the NSA wiretapping. So long as the Bush administration is acting in good faith, and using this program to fight terrorism (ie, not using the program to spy on political enemies, not listening in for some voyeuristic shits and giggles type thrills), then I’m not opposed.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the NSA program is the ” big net ” example from above. I recall one former intelligence expert making the point that ” how do you obtain a search warrant for a word?” He was referring to the fact that intelligence services may acquire information relating to terrorist communication codes, but don’t know the identity of unknown terrorist associates that al Qaeda operatives may be trying to communicate with. The only way you identify these people is to grab every communication with certain keywords, then through a process of elimination separate the innocuous from the suspects.

All of this is a long winded way of saying that the only way to identify some heretofor unknown terrorists within the U.S., or anywhere else for that matter, is to listen in on everyone. Again, we don’t know enough about the NSA initiative yet to say this is what’s happening, but I suspect this is what’s been going on.

If this is the case, then it pretty much finishes the argument from many, that they understand the need for extensive electronic eavesdropping, but there isn’t any reason why it can’t be done by way of warrant, through the FISA courts. It’s probably a program designed to identify new terrorist suspects, and they can’t be named in a warrant beforehand, if you don’t know who they are.

In my view, the issue then becomes, do you support the intrusion because you believe the trade-off (preventing terrorist acts) is worth it, or do you take the opposite tack, and argue that the risk of increased vulnerability to terrorism is a price worth paying to keep the government from listening in on its citizens?

You know where I stand, TH, and it’s completely predicated on a government acting in good faith.

I guess it would depend on whether some future president was willing to become the next Richard Nixon, lrC. Given the frequency of leaks and whistleblowing from the Clinton and Bush administrations, the risk of getting caught for not acting in good faith would be prohibitive, in my view.

We have already lost treehugger, not only that but a cowed and fearful society has willingly capitulated.

So long as the Bush administration is acting in good faith

You have far more faith in the good intentions of government than I do - if this is all legal and above board then a court order would hardly be denied, it would appear to me there are few justifiable reasons for side-stepping the law.

Mike H said

As with other controversial issues involving state intrusion into our privacy, intent has alot to do with my position on the NSA wiretapping. So long as the Bush administration is acting in good faith, and using this program to fight terrorism (ie, not using the program to spy on political enemies, not listening in for some voyeuristic shits and giggles type thrills), then I’m not opposed.

… and I checked my email :-)

TH:

>>”It dawned on me later that I can easily answer yes to that question. I travel on business almost every week of the year….”

Fair enough. That’s how I worded my question to you. But if I may backtrack a bit to the original theme of your post. To you view the additional time lost to travel to be a human rights issue, or an inconvenience?

>>”I do, however, worry about any government obtaining information “in good faith”. That determination is entirely subjective and Dick Cheney’s idea of good faith and mine will differ greatly, I presume.”

I think you and Cheney may differ as to what constitutes ” good faith ” in some cases, TH. But on the issue of the NSA warrantless wiretaps, I’d say Cheney is stuck with the same definition as you, SL, or myself, or anyone else looking at this objectively. Simply put, it can’t be used for anything other than gathering intelligence to combat terrorism. End of story. No wiggle room. Any administration that tried to use the program for a nefarious purpose would be looking at impeachment, criminal charges, and a legacy worse than Nixon’s, as I mentioned above. There wouldn’t be any ” good faith ” defence available in such a case. The only defence would be to not get caught.

>>”If a government needs to surrepticiously listen in/monitor the activities of its citizens then at the very least they should have to prove to a judge that the activity is necessary.”

Have a look at what I said to SL, TH. This probably isn’t something that can be remedied to anyone’s satisfaction by a judge. Congress will have to either sanction Bush’s authority to do this, or pass a law validating it on a broader level. I don’t think the former is very likely. However, as I mentioned to SL, Congress would still be on the horns of a dilemma. To retain the effectiveness of the NSA program (and that too has been questioned; how effective has this warrantless interception been?), Congress would be stuck passing a law which would, in all likelihood, allow blanket warrantless evesdropping on Americans, in the name of national security.

In the end, you’re still left with the same conundrum I mentioned at the end of # 4. Is the privacy violation, even if completely above board and free of abuse, a price worth paying to combat terrorism?