2006-05-24

It's Not Security vs. Liberty

Just about everyone in the administration, including the president, has said that they are only spying in on Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda affiliates.

If that’s the case, why do they need to bypass the courts?

Any court in the country would give you a warrant to spy on a person talking to Al Qaeda or an Al Qaeda affiliate.

4 comments:

Paul Hue said...

Nadir: I agree with you on this point, with one exception: I am open to proposals for taking action without prior approval, PROVIDED THAT all actions are overseen by congressional representatives, and subject to challanges by same, refereed by the federal judiciary.

Furthermore, I insist that any of these programs receive congressional approval prior to their enactment. I oppose any programs that Bush has enacted without approval or oversight from the congress.

Nadir said...

So you think it is okay for congress to pass a law saying they can search without a warrant? A bill like this has been introduced...

You don't have a problem with congress dealing your civil liberties away?

Paul Hue said...

I agree hypothetically to a law approved by congress that permits the executive branch (CIA, FBI, NSA) to search without a warrent under certain war-time circumstances, provided that the searches are subject to open-book scrutiny by congressional representatives and post-facto approval federal judges. I would want such a law to also require annual re-approval, and the qualiffying circumstances to include only direct terrorism threats, with evidence uncovered for other crimes to be surpressed.

Nadir said...

I don't vote for that bill. I think present FISA laws are adequate.