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 (8383)	1/5/2006 6:12:32 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 541755

"Tell Auntie Em and Toto, too; Oz never did give nothin' to the tin man that he didn't already have."

To: Lane3 who wrote (8383)	1/5/2006 6:15:46 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541755

1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval? No 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? No 3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen? No 4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced? Not that I know of. The test for treason should remain what it has always been. If a journalist happened to give state secrets TO the enemy, NOT merely reporting, but acting as an agent of another enemy government, fine- that's probably treason, but no new definitions, please. 5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war? No. I can see how they might assassinate people illegally, but then they must be ready to pay the price. I don't think we can afford to make it "legal". 6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases? I don't see the problem here. I'm assuming these are tools that are in accord with the constitution, and US laws as they are now. If so, then yes. 7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it? Absolutely not. 8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime? No. 9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand? No. 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? No.

To: Lane3 who wrote (8383)	1/5/2006 8:52:03 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541755

1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval? Purely domestic phone calls or e-mails, or phone calls and e-mails to or from other countries? (This is really only an issue for the phone calls, e-mail works differently) 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? Not if all you have is "he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell". 3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen? Only a rather extreme one that I don't think is likely, something like the "ticking nuclear bomb" case or something similarly extreme. But since the question says "can you imagine..." I would have to say yes. 4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Short answer: Probably not. Long Answer: How should I know. If they mean for publishing anti-administration, or even outright anti-American articles I would say no. Also if he means can you name any specific journalist who should be investigated for possible treason I would say no and if he means should journalist be investigated for treason on any sort of regular basis I would say no. However its possible that there is A journalist out there that is actually committing treason. Its also possible that the FBI or some other agency has enough evidence for probably cause for an investigation, probably not though. Should Sedition laws be re-introduced? No 5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war? Declared war or any conflict? Edit - Either way probably yes, but with restrictions. We could kill active enemy along the lines of what you mention here Message 22031852 and Message 22031901 6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases? "Every single", is fairly strong, and also too wide for me to give a definitive answer but in general I would say yes. OTOH some of the law-enforcement tools should probably not be available in non-terrorist cases (and perhaps not in terrorist cases either). 7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it? I could see seizing it. Esp. if it is something like a bomb or a weapon. But if the person is never even charged, let alone convicted, of anything I don't think it should sold or otherwise permanently taken away from the owner (assuming it is legally owned). If for example the owner is arrested the property should be returned when the detention is over. 8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime? Not generally but I could see it as being reasonable in certain circumstances and I don't have the aversion to it that some libertarians or liberals have. My opposition is more practical then principled. Police are trained in apprehending criminals, most soldiers are trained to kill the enemy. Sure they could make arrests but except for MPs it is not what they are primarily trained for. I wouldn't like the routine use of soldiers to enforce the law even if they were properly trained and equipped but I don't think it is automatically unjust or unconstitutional. 9) Should there be a national I.D. card, I'm not a fan of the idea, but I don't think it is a horribly evil thing either and I could see some use in having one. I guess you could say "leaning to no". and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand? I don't think so. 10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified Probably not. I see more chance for problems then benefits from that. Its possible some specific things that aren't classified should be, but there are probably more cases where it is the other way around so the optimal situation would probably be one where a lower percentage of such activities and documents were classified. I would be interested in reading the responses from some of the people he links to and/or mentions (Glenn Reynolds, Thomas Sowell, Charles Fried, ect.) respond to the article. (Assuming they do respond.) Tim