Hypothetically, 'scooped up' calls of Americans, to be dealt with through 'minimization' procedures

[dajoki]

Democrats Propose Compromise to Expand Government Surveillance

By Ellen Nakashima and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; 5:24 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101514.html

<<snip>>

The proposal, according to House and Senate Democrats, would permit a secret court to issue a single broad order approving eavesdropping of communications involving suspects overseas and other people, who may be in the United States. That order "need not be individualized," according to a Democratic aide.

<<snip>>

The administration's proposal also would grant the attorney general sole authority to order the interception of communications for as long as one year, if he certified that the surveillance was directed at a person outside the United States.

<<snip>>

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office, contended that Democrats, wary of being tagged as soft on terrorism, are "capitulating to the politics of fear."

<<snip>>

The Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the House has not acted yet, said that "hypothetically, if a broad warrant targeted on people in a foreign country 'scooped up' the calls of Americans, those calls would be dealt with through minimization procedures. If they were to be listened to, a warrant would be required."

Minimization means not recording or disseminating analysis of communications involving U.S. persons unless they are relevant to a foreign terrorism investigation.

[fooj]

1. Oh sure. Jr. is BIG on warrants. Ugh.

[Ian David]

2. All that video phonesex to women in the former Russian Republics won't be at ALL tempting...

to federal agents bored with spending hour upon hour listening to family gossip every day.

[JDPriestly]

3. Americans need to know what is going on.

A lot of people needlessly worry that their personal calls are being monitored. When the government has a blank check to record and snoop on calls and e-mails, etc., and no one knows just what is going on in reality, it causes unnecessary suspicion and fear. That alienates people. It could conceivably sow mistrust and fear in the very people whose cooperation is most needed in fighting terrorism -- people who need to have confidence in the authorities dealing with information about terrorism. I don't think there are very many terrorists in the U.S., but the aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, etc. of the few people who might be seduced by extremist propaganda should not be somehow pushed into the same category as the terrorists themselves. This is counterproductive. Some things need to be secret, but the Bush administration holds too much information secret. It actually would be better for fighting terrorism if the discussion about what terrorism is and how it is being fought were more widely understood.

The Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights. It supposedly lets us know what the government can and cannot do. Our laws are written if not in Codes then in case law that you can look up in the library. Judges apply that law. They really don't just make up arbitrary rules ad hoc (even though it might sometimes seem that they do). That is one of the ways that our system ensures that the law is at least somewhat fair and that we are all subject to the same law.

The problem with the proliferation of secrecy in the Bush administration is that it permits the law to be applied unfairly, and ensures that no one will know the difference. I have no way, and neither does anyone else, to know if the law regarding wiretapping is being applied so as to invade my privacy and whether maybe someone else is free from that kind of invasion of privacy. The decision on whose calls or e-mails to listen to or read could be made based on unfair criteria. We can't know, but, in the absence of information, have to suspect the worst. Secrecy enables and even breeds injustice.

Why can't the Bush administration just explain what it is doing -- fully? What do they have to gain by being so secretive about their programs? Unless they decide to be open about these things, what are we all to think other than that they are knowingly doing something wrong, something that we would not like if we knew about it. They may not be doing anything wrong. We really don't know. They may be applying the law equally to all people as required by the Constitution. They act like ten-year-old kids with a secret society. It is juvenile. That is just not the way mature adults treat each other.

I can't believe the stupidity of these guys.

[dajoki]

5. Yes, you are right...

Their secrecy says it all. What are they so desperately trying to hide? We know some of it but not everything, and this, among other things, is IMO why they are considered criminals. I've never seen anyone lie and point the finger all over the place to cover up their own activity like this bunch.

[aquart]

4. No. No. No. NO.