War News Updates: Is The U.S. Surveillance Act That Permits U.S. Surveillance In Other Countries Constitutional?

This is what I call ‘lawyers running amok’. To force intelligence agencies to screen and then apply for specific communications to be targeted for surveillance will …. in my opinion …. create a bureaucratic empire that would make such surveillance impossible to conduct in a timely manner. On top of that …. foreign groups can easily change their means of communication to use other sources and outlets …. hence repeating the same screening process and time consuming exercise (again) for the intelligence community.

via War News Updates: Is The U.S. Surveillance Act That Permits U.S. Surveillance In Other Countries Constitutional?.

There’s a difference between curbing the police powers of the state and unduly shackling the military and intelligence agencies conducting operations of war, and counter terrorism.

Do we not remember Gorelick’s infamous “Wall of Separation?”

4 thoughts on “War News Updates: Is The U.S. Surveillance Act That Permits U.S. Surveillance In Other Countries Constitutional?”

  1. But Sir . . . we must level the playing field for the enemy . . . in the interests
    of fairness and social justice. The US Military is just too good at what it does
    and that will hurt the self-esteem of our allies and most importantly, our 7th
    Century Co-Combatants!

    It is not their fault that they are lashing out with violence against anyone not
    like them. To call them savages is the height of judgementalism! It is clearly
    the result of our oppression of them. The indiscriminate violence is merely a
    coping mechanism to reduce the trauma of knowing they cannot even defeat
    the french . . . except by out-breeding them.

    Did you know the United States of America is responsible for The Crusades
    as well . . .? All of them . . . really. I had been told this regularly by the locals.

    I was fascinated to learn this, Sir. It just had to be true, as we all know that
    saracens can never lie . . .? They are like . . . Vulcans with suicide vests and
    kalasnikovs . . . or something. I went to public school. Totally.

    When locals wanted to be annoying, they would ask repeatedly: “Mis-Tah,
    what IS your na-ame?”

    If they were really irritating, I would answer: “Crusader.”

    That shut them up in a hurry, and they suddenly remembered they had an
    appointment somewhere else.

  2. The US government exists to protect the rights of US citizens. The Constitution is the operating document that lays how that goal will be achieved. If you are not a citizen or a guest of this country the Constitution doesn’t apply to you. It is the responsibility of your government to protect and secure your rights either through the use of force against the US or, more likely, through negotiation with the US government (eg. Hauge and Geneva conventions).

    1. Careful, Mr.Guach, you are applying common sense and logic to an
      illogical problem . . .

      Such as neither the Hague nor Geneva Convention afford any form
      of protection to terrorist insurgents . . . yet we treat them better than
      our own personnel deployed in the field.

      The enemy does not uphold any component of Article Four of the
      Geneva Convention with regards to the proper conduct of armed
      combatants. Therefore they cannot claim protections afforded to
      EPWs under those statutes.

      Arguably, if we in fact obeyed the Geneva Convention, we would
      do whatever is required to find out what they know, then dispose
      of them permenantly.

      Imagine how fast some would desert the cause if they knew we
      would kill them no matter what . . .

      Yet that will not happen, as good men and women must die for the
      sake of the chattering class’s “moral superiority”.

    2. Yeah, I get that a lot.

      I think its important when discussing our current detainee issue to differentiate between “can” and “should.” Sure, neither Al Queda nor the Taliban qualify for legal protections, but Congress, in exercising its responsibilities under the Conventions has legally required US forces to abide by all the restrictions, regardless of the status of the enemy. It’s simpler that way and pretty much eliminates any risk of committing a war crime.

      Increasing our ruthlessness against the enemy might dissuade them. It might, however, fortify their resolve. We didn’t quail much when Daniel Pearl was butchered. It would certainly alienate our allies and a significant segment of the domestic support.

      Could we build a giant trebuchet to chuck terrorists into Fidel’s Happy Camp? Sure. Would it be a good idea? Not really.

Comments are closed.