Taken from the libertarian news magazine reason.com, at the following URL:
http://www.reason.com/links/links010506.shtml

The author, Matt Welch, says 'no' to each of these questions.

How far is too far?

1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?

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?

3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?

4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?

5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?

6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?

7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?

8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?

9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?

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?

 

I don't know about you, but waterboarding sounds like fun. Sign me up!

 

I'm pretty sure the answer is "no" to every question except 6. I'm not sure what he means by "anti-terrorist cops" or "every single law-enforcement tool."

 

1) Yes
2) No
3) Yes
4) Possibly
5) No
6) Yes, until proven beyond doubt it is not terrorist related and then No.
7) Seize, Yes. Sell, No
8) Depends on the crime, if it is terrorism related possibly.
9) Undecided on this, I like and hate the idea of a national ID card.
10) When it comes to terrorism and preventing it, Yes.

 

Sometimes, when you and I get into debates, I jump to conclusions about your beliefs and opinions if you haven't fully explained them, so forgive me if I'm wrong. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just trying to figure this out.

Your answer to number one makes it sound like you don't believe in an individual's right to privacy. Is that the case?

You answer to number four makes me think that you don't like the idea of a free press. Is that right?

Adlai Stevenson said "A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular." Should we charge a person with treason because they disagree with the government and publish it?

An example: do you think a journalist who wrote in 1940 that the Japanese internment camps were wrong and evil should have been tried and sentenced to prison?

Your answer to number seven is pretty clear, and I disagree with it. I thought you believed in property rights.

After thinking about 10 a little more, I'm on the fence. Some secrets need to be kept. This one is too complicated to boil down to a hard-and-fast rule.

 

Let me clarify for you...I don't think you are being a dick.

I believe in the right to privacy, but if there is sufficient cause for a government agency to take a peak to see if what you are doing is legal and not a threat to the country, especially when time is of the essence, then I can see a need for this. However, it should be limited in scope and the rules for executing a surveilance like this need to be clear and agreed upon. It should also be used in rare situations.

I think we should also have a free press. However the press is not free to write about things that will impact national security. The idiot that wrote how we were listening to Osama's sattelite phone and made him change his methods should be charged. Writing that you disagree with Camp Gitmo or the War on Terror is not a crime. Exposing secret information on how the US gathers intelligence on those that would do us harm is.

Your example of the Japanese camps during WWII is something that is not a crime. Writing how we broke the Japanes naval codes would be.

As for property rights I am 100% for them. But if there is a good suspicion that you are involved in terrorist activities I do feel that something like your computer should be seized and looked at as part of the investigation. However, possesions such as your clothes, bed, dishes, TV, etc should not be taken. But if they want to take your car and see if you are hiding things in it or the trunk reaks of radiation then by all means they should be able to. But only if there is sufficient evidence to warrant such a search...and I do feel a warrant is necessary but like my answer above concerning privacy rights there should be clear rules of engagement when it can be done without court authority and again it should be rare.

I hope that helps. Basically I do not want to limit our law enforcement but rahter have clear guidelines to cover all the bases.

 

The rules are pretty clear already, and FISA warrants can be issued retroactively. If time is of the essence, law enforcement is actually allowed to go ahead and peek first and ask for the warrant later. There's no reason not to get the warrant except if the person or agency spying thinks it would be denied.

Given the specific circumstances that you described above, you and I are in agreement.

You're right that there should be clear rules, and in fact there are. But seizing the property of a person who is suspected of a crime is not okay. If there is a good reason to seize property, then why hasn't the person already been arrested and charged with a crime?