Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (7790)	12/21/2005 2:26:13 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541857

The most interesting bit, for me, about Posner's column is his use of the metaphor of policy gaps. As "the Pentagon rushed to fill . . ." Two points. First, those are best filled by advocating legislative change in the open air rather than questionable, at best, presidential unilateral actions. Second, "filling in the gaps" might well be considered a violation of the statute. I wonder if that would be a criminal act.

To: Lane3 who wrote (7790)	12/21/2005 2:51:30 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541857

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it difficult to conduct surveillance of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents unless they are suspected of being involved in terrorist or other hostile activities. That is too restrictive. Innocent people, such as unwitting neighbors of terrorists, may, without knowing it, have valuable counterterrorist information. Collecting such information is of a piece with data-mining projects such as Able Danger. Not an unreasonable argument, but if you are going to have such surveillance and data collection I think its important to be sure that it is constitutional and doesn't' conflict with constitutionally valid law. If the FISA act is too restrictive it could be changed. If it puts unconstitutional limits on the president it could be struck down, at least the president should openly argue that its unconstitutional. Either would be better than simply ignoring it's requirements. Tim