Interesting People mailing list archives
more on AP Story Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:51:22 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: Michael Kende <Michael.Kende () analysys com> Date: December 30, 2005 3:28:21 PM EST To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox comSubject: RE: [IP] more on AP Story Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak
There is another implicit argument in Mr. Bray's comment that should be challenged, and that is that this is an "ongoing intelligence operation" that is only related to the war. I am not saying that it has been abused, but I don't see how Mr. Bray could say that it has not been abused - to say so would purely be a faith-based statement at this point (in fact, I am not really sure that anyone could say what would actually constitute abuse under this system). I quickly note that this is not knee jerk cynicism about this specific administration - it is simply general cynicism about the danger of unchecked executive power that has long been recognized by the checks and balances inherent in our system. I think that every reasonable person recognizes a few issues in this debate, namely that wiretapping/surveillance is a necessary tool of wartime as well as peacetime, and that confidentiality of the target is essential to the success of these operations. Thus, the FISA system was created so that someone independent of the administration confidentially confirms the validity of each wiretap target, even ex post, so that everyone has some assurance that the system is not being abused, without anyone knowing the particulars. Many on both sides of the aisle have said this principle is inviolable, and I think it is dangerous to say that does not matter because the administration has ruled that its actions are legal. To conclude, I guess I would ask Mr. Bray where the line is in all this - if it is simply enough for the DOJ to say a wartime activity is legal to make it so, is there ever an action that they could take that would go too far for you? Michael -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 2:25 PM To: ip () v2 listbox com Subject: [IP] more on AP Story Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak Good question djf Begin forwarded message: From: Jeff Nye <jpn () users sourceforge net> Date: December 30, 2005 2:17:27 PM EST To: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] more on AP Story Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak I can appreciate Mr. Bray's comments in the context of a legal, authorized "ongoing intelligence operation". But it is far from clear that that is what we have here. Would it make any difference if the "ongoing intelligence operation" was illegal in the first place? That is, if a crime is being committed in secret, are people not allowed to make it public? Or is DOJ approval proof enough that no crime is being committed? Jeff Nye ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as ken.figueredo () analysys com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on AP Story Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak David Farber (Dec 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- more on AP Story Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak David Farber (Dec 30)
- more on AP Story Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak David Farber (Dec 30)
- more on AP Story Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak David Farber (Dec 30)
- more on AP Story Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak David Farber (Dec 30)