Thanks to Stephen Littau at Fearless Philosophy For Free Minds, I am reminded of this article at Reason Online by Matt Welch directed toward pro-war libertarians in which he asks a series of questions.
Stephen’s responses to Matt’s questions can be found here.
And here are mine.
1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?
Presuming that you are talking about purely domestic telephone or e-mail conversations, then the answer is an emphatic no. If you are talking about conversations between someone in the United States and someone overseas then the answer is……..it depends.
Let’s take a hypothetical situation. A known al Qaeda operative in the Middle East is under observation and found to be communicating with someone in, say, New York City on a regular basis. Given the events of September 11th, I personally have no problem with the government monitoring the telephone conversations between this operative and anyone in America without first obtaining judicial approval.
Of course, the lawyer in me sees it this way —- the only situation in which the failure to obtain a warrant really matters is if someone is going to be prosecuted in Court. If that’s not going to happen and this is purely an intelligence gathering operation, then it really doesn’t matter if there was a 4th Amendment violation or not.
2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell?
Like Stephen, I would have to answer no to this question. The Supreme Court has already ruled in the Hamdi case that this impermissible, and the government has pretty much acknowledged it in the Padilla case by its decision to charge that suspect in Federal Court rather than prosecute him before a military tribunal.
3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?
Quite frankly, yes. Imagine a situation where we know a terrorist cell had managed to get a nuclear device into an American city. Millions of lives are at stake. Waterboarding is psychological torture, but it is not physical torture. If it results in someone divulging information that saves a city, then, quite frankly, yes, its justified.
4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?
As much as I respect Matt Welch as a writer, I think this question is a red herring. Outside of some elements of the right wing, I don’t know anyone who is seriously suggestion that journalists should be investigated for, or charged with, treason.
As for Sedition Laws, I think the Presidential election of 1800 pretty much answered the question as to whether they are legitimate or not.
5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?
As Stephen said in his post, it depends on the circumstances. If by assassination you mean killing bin Laden if the opportunity arises, then my response is abso-freaking-lutley.
6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?
Absolutely not. This is one of the problems I have with the re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act, which has been used in a non-terrorism context far too often since 9/11.
Actually, I have a problem with the premise of the question. Terrorism is not a law enforcement issue to be handled by cops. It is a national security issue to be dealt with by the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force (along with the CIA, DIA, NSA, etc. of course).
7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?
Well….it depends. Are we talking about a suspected terrorist residing in the United States or one residing in, say Afghanistan who happens to be captured by the U.S. Army ? In the first case, the answer is no. In the second case, we are talking about a capture on the field of battle in which case the seizure of property is, as far as I know, entirely proper.
Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?
No, that’s what police are for.
9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?
No on both counts.
10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?
The fact of the matter is that there are certain matters that simply cannot be made public for the good of the country. At the same time, there does need to be oversigh even of classified operations. More broadly, the endless compulsion of government to classify all kinds of information is, I think, counterproductive. The idea that the enemy does not know what’s really going on is naive and the only thing that overly aggressive secrecy accomplishes is to keep ordinary Americans in the dark.
Technorati Tags: War on Terror
