Glenn Greenwald has been beating this horse for some time now here, here, here, and here. I thought I would bring an exchange between myself and one of the clear headed comments over here in attempt to get some more objective opinions weighing in.

If you are not a regular reader of Glenn’s blog you should be. His arguments are about as reasonable as it gets from the left.

Please read Glenn’s latest post, and then my exchange here with Hypathia.

The Ugly American said…

Sorry I haven’t taken the time to address your continued beating of this dead horse Glenn 8).

Just a couple of questions.

1. You do recognize that the administration in fact did notify senior leadership from both parties in the appropriate committees in Congress and the Senate of their NSA survielance numerous times correct?

2. Do you have any evidence of any particular person who’s civil rights were violated, or any evidence of an abuse of this program? not theories, or possibilities but real living people who were harmed by it.

3. If not (and you do not) then where are these victims that must exist somewhere?

Glenn never responded but a frequent poster and GWB supporter in 2004 did here was her reply:

Hypatia said…

The Ugly American asks: 2. Do you have any evidence of any particular person who’s civil rights were violated, or any evidence of an abuse of this program? not theories, or possibilities but real living people who were harmed by it.

Allow me to reply to that. It is beyond any dispute that people’s civil rights were violated, because the Bush Admin admits it has been intercepting and monitoring the communications of persons in the United States without warrants, in contravention of FISA.

While we do not know the identities of these individuals, it is known that some John and Jane Does have been harmed; your privacy interests are violated if the police tap your telephone without a warrant and in the absence of any (rare) circumstances that exempt the 4th Am warrant requirement for telephone surveillance. That is true even if you are engaged in a criminal enterprise.

In sum: Violating one’s privacy right to be free from unreasonable governmental searches is an intrinsic harm.

and my reply to her:

The Ugly American said…

First of all I appreciate your point Hypathia.

in order for your reply to be correct wouldn’t a person need to be innocent and not communicating with some Al Qaeda person on an international phone call?

My point was neither you nor Glenn nor anyone else knows exactly who’s calls were monitored. It is entirely possible that the NSA only monitored known Al Qaeda affiliates speaking with an unknown person here in the US.

Those are not your average john or jane doe’s those are enemy agents and therefore not protected by your or my civil rights are they?

If that is true I do not see how you can argue anyones rights were violated.

Now it could also be true that some innocent civilian’s phone call was monitored. But you would have to have some kind of proof of that first wouldn’t you?

Don’t you need a victim?

Up until this point no one has come forward who knows their call was monitored.

Keep in mind this program is/was top secret (I believe necessarily so) to thwart our enemy in war time. It seems entirely reasonable to me that our government would monitor foreign powers attempting to attack us with the cooperation or direct involvement of citizens or resident aliens in the US without aquiring a warrent.

Because of the highly sensitive nature of the program it is the Congress and Senate leaders who were briefed responsibility to make sure this is the case is it not?

My point was we do not know who was monitored nor should we have known. However the Congressmen and Senators who were briefed damn well should have known. If there was any question of legality they should have raised concerns a very long time ago. The fact that they did not leads me to believe they thought everything was proper. The only other possibilities are they were complicit or incompetent right?

and Hypathia’s reply:

Hypatia said…

The Ugly American:

I’d like to pose a question to you, and I’m not being snarky at all; I’d really like to know what you believe is the purpose of the 4th Am, which reads as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

and finally my reply:

The Ugly American said…

I believe you are trying to be constructive Hypathia as I always do. I welcome it. Your concerns are valid and reasonable. However I do not share them.

Even though you answered none of my questions I will gladly answer yours:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To me that means law enforcement can not without probable cause and a warrent search my home, listen to my phone calls, or seize my personal effects for any crime. Be it robbing a liquor store, burglarizing someones home, defrauding my company of millions of dollars etc.

It does not prevent the government from doing all of the above when it believes I am either an active agent of a foreign power at war with this country, or a citizen cooperating with said foreign agents at war witht his country.

I see a clear distinction between the two. Don’t you?

for instance I have no problem with the government using radiation detecting equipment in a non invasive way to find out of people are storing materials to make dirty bombs.

Again are you aware of anyone who has been arrested and charged with any crime based on warrentless searches or survielance?

I am not. If you are please tell us. You would have the scoop of the year.

I guess the other fundemental question is do you believe we are at war with an enemy who’s clearly and often stated goal is to kill you me and everyone else in this country?

I do. I take the enemy at their word. I for one do not want our government to wait until your city has been blown up to take more drastic measures.

Do you?

Do you acknowledge that all but the most foolish, or most duplicitous among us would would throw the concerns about this NSA program out the window if your city was blown up?

Now all that being said I do not believe our Executive should have free reign to do whatever he wishes. Which is why the congressional leaders who were informed of this program have such an awsome responsibility.

I don’t expect many of the commenters here to read anything I just said with any objectivity. However I do expect that much from you Hypathia.

Now am I crazy? Isn’t there a clear distinction between criminals and soldiers/spies/foreign agents waging war on our country?

You may also want to read this story in today’s New York Times which fails to mention the conservative and liberal legal scholars who think the NSA program is legal.

Other bloggers talking about the NSA story include:

TMH’s Bacon Bits on the LA Times coverage of this story.

Just one Minute has comments on Glenn’s post as well as another one of Glenn’s commentors 8).

*********Update*********

The Strata-Spere agrees with me and probably says it much better.

This post is also linked to the following blogs who have Open Trackbacks this weekend: Stop The ACLU Publius Rendezvous, The Uncooerative Bloggers, The Liberal Wrong Wing,

Please visit them, read them, buy whatever their advertisers are selling and tip your waitress. Thank you Good Night!

related posts:

Robertson and Rockefeller Leaked Top Secret NSA Program?
The NSA Story A Layman’s Perspective