This is absolutely unconscionable…
In a top secret order obtained by the Guardian newspaper and published Wednesday evening, the FBI on the NSA’s behalf demanded that Verizon turn over all metadata for phone records originating in the United States for the three months beginning in late April and ending on the 19th of July. That metadata includes all so-called “non-content” data for millions of American customers’ phone calls, such as the subscriber data, recipients, locations, times and durations of every call made during that period.
Aside from the sheer scope of that surveillance order, reminiscent of the warrantless wiretapping scandal under the Bush administration, the other shocking aspect of the order its target: The order specifically states that only data regarding calls originating in America are to be handed over, not those between foreigners.
“It is hereby ordered that [Verizon Business Network Services’] Custodian of Records shall produce to the National Security Agency…all call detail records or ‘telephony metadata’ created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls,” the Guardian’s copy of the order reads. “This Order does not require Verizon to include telephony metadata for communications wholly originating and terminating in foreign countries.”
I’ve long believed that the warrantless wiretapping made so much easier under the auspices of the Patriot Act was a dangerous proposition, and this news, coupled with news that the NSA has been tapping into the servers of major Internet companies to collect audio, video, photographs, e-mails and other documents under a program code-named PRISM should give us all cause for grave concern.
The fact that our “Constitutional scholar” president seems to think these domestic spying programs are not just justifiable (which they may be under current law) but more importantly right is disappointing, to say the least.
The good news is that I don’t think progressives are going to give Obama a pass on this and some real action might take place. I mean come on, can you see a GOP led House coming full bore for GW Bush or Romney over this?
Thanks Zach. And Sensenbrenner
“Jim Sensenbrenner’s Horseshit Claims of Innocence”
Thus far, Sensenbrenner might just be disingenuous and stupid.
But it’s worse than that. You see, this collection program was officially birthed in 2006 in the aftermath of the revelation of the illegal wiretap program to incorporate parts of that program, though FBI appears to have been testing this theory earlier. Before the PATRIOT Act was renewed, the House Judiciary Committee — then chaired by a guy named Jim Sensenbrenner — was pushing language for Section 215 that was far more permissive than what the Senate Judiciary wanted. Sensenbrenner’s language, which is what passed, read,
“the information likely to be obtained from the tangible things is reasonably expected to be (A) foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person, or (B) relevant to an ongoing investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”
In other words, this “relevant to” language is Sensenbrenner’s own, language he pushed for in the face of pressure from Senate Dems.
But that’s not even the last time Sensenbrenner championed this permissive language.
This issue came up again in 2009 and 2011 renewals of the PATRIOT, with Conyers and friends on HJC and Wyden and Udall consistently calling attention to this giant permissive hole in the bill. Sensenbrenner never showed the concern he has invented today.
In short, this language — the language being used to conduct dragnet collection on Americans — is Sensenbrenner’s own language. It’s only through outright deceit he can pretend differently.
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/06/06/jim-sensenbrenners-horseshit-claims-of-innocence/
Not a “peep” about this from the Bradley Foundation. The silence is another example of their being AWOL on a mission it claims as “core,” defense of civil liberties. Wonder if anyone will point out this silence in challenging their 501(c) status.
From the Foundation’s web site:
“They will seek to reinvigorate and reempower the traditional, local institutions — families, schools, churches, and neighborhoods — that provide training in and room for the exercise of genuine citizenship, that pass on everyday morality to the next generation, and that cultivate personal character.
They will encourage decentralization of power and accountability away from centralized, bureaucratic, national institutions back to the states, localities, and revitalized mediating structures where citizenship is more fully realized.”
http://www.bradleyfdn.org/program_interests.asp
Oh for cripes sake. Unconscionable? I’ll save my judgement of unconscionable for Glenn Greenwald. He’s working with half-facts and he draws specious conclusions.
1. PRISM predates the Obama Administration
2. If you’re going to indict the Obama Administration over PRISM then indict the entire U.S. Congress because every member of Congress has been aware and apprised of the provisions of PRISM from day one. This is not a secret maneuver hatched by the Obama Administration. Whether those elected representatives paid any attention – and it is highly probable that a number of them didn’t is an equally worthy (if not more damning) condemnation. They’ve got to renew it every 3 months for pity’s sake. If any member of Congress has the audacity to bleat out “Tyranny! tyranny! Oh, our civil liberties are at risk! Oh, the horrid overreach!” They’re either fraudulent opportunists or hopelessly incompetent. Congress reauthorized PRISM itself via normal proceedings, hearings, and debates. And the other entity to direct outrage at is the Foreign Surveillance Court.
3. From what I can see PRISM is brilliant, and it works. Given what has been publicly disclosed, we can conclude it never led to any wrongful arrest, rather its prudent use has successfully and correctly led to the monitoring, but more importantly – the apprehension of those actually engaged in suspicious activity because of its sophisticated level of accuracy. PRISM has foiled domestic terrorism – real world, planned, actual terrorism – prevented it from being executed on U.S. soil.
4. NSA doesn’t appear to utilize PRISM unreasonably, and only when there is sufficient evidence to arouse suspicion that communications with terrorist organizations outside the U.S. have been raised. As far as we know. No reason to get all outraged yet.
5. You’re assuming that all of Greenwald’s information is accurate. I’d consider that assumption premature and unwise.
6. PRISM doesn’t consider the content of any calls, it doesn’t target U.S. citizens within the United States – only non-U.S. citizens on foreign soil. Quite frankly, if it did do otherwise, I wouldn’t have much umbrage to offer. What PRISM does is identify VITAL associative behavior ESSENTIAL for counter-terrorism analysis.
7. There’s nothing illegal about this program and it has been confirmed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – established prior to 9/11. Said court received a whopping total of 1,789 applications to pursue with PRISM in 2012 – hardly a sweeping percentage of America’s population of some 313 million. Hardly the “unlimited nature” Greenwald insists upon. But, I’ll withhold judgement on Greenwald until there is more information to be had. At this point, however, he’s lost all credibility in my estimation.
I, for one, hope that a through investigation into this leak occurs because it must surely rank among the most sensitive and highly classified leaks ever to occur. I’d say a massive leak with the potential of ensuring incalcuable unnecessary risk. What is unconscionable is that it was leaked, that it was publicly disclosed, and that a lot of long labor, investigation, and good work has been utterly demolished in the name of civil liberties. It turns the stomach really, for the widespread propensity to abuse the Bill of Rights, the concepts of individual rights and Liberty of the Press in some holy cause against insidious tyranny. Some holy, irrational cause I might add. The only thing this leak achieved is opening nice and wide a convenient escape hatch for those legitimately under investigation. Years of progress, no doubt, undone. I agree with Clapper – the leak and the ensuing “reports” in the press are reprehensible.
Given what I’ve seen thus far about PRISM and the revealed surveillance measures so quickly disregarded as “intrusive” and “scandalous” and “controversial” I’d say none of the above. I’m all in support of it. 100%. Given the massive and seemingly uncontrollable nature of global crime syndication, I would say PRISM has utility outside the realm of counter-terrorism as well.
I’m not supportive of Obama’s administration on a number of scores, but this one wouldn’t be one of those scores. Gripe about Obama changing tack from candidate to president on transparency or the Patriot Act. But misconstruing “transparency” with “counter-terrorism” is just flat-out asinine. Transparency has absolutely nothing to do with counter-terrorism. Nothing. None of this has a whit to do with civil liberties either. If PRISM and these related efforts were to be employed on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil to get a handle on domestic terrorists, I’d say yeah. I have no problem with that. If it thwarted a Woolwich-like tragedy – like the beheading of an American soldier in the middle of the street in the middle of day…. yeah, I’d say I have no problem with PRISM. The alleged Woolwich assassins never left the scene, instead laid in wait and attempted to ambush police. Escalated brutality of a new order. That happened in London. The alleged assassins were British citizens allegedly taking vengeance on Britain for its role in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not a lot has been revealed about Woolwich yet, but on the surface looks as if something similar to PRISM might have been able to prevent it. Not sure. Greenwald, to my knowledge, hasn’t revealed how British intelligence apprehended the Woolwich conspirators – perhaps he’s only interested in revealing classified American counter-espionage techniques.
Anyway, America has its own peculiar brand of domestic threat and to assume something like Woolwich won’t happen here is naive at best, ignorant at worst. I’m much more concerned about the home-grown domestic threats on U.S. soil than even those on foreign soil, and certainly concerned enough to put civil liberties in proper perspective.
Can’t say that I can guess what Wyden and Udall are doing, but if they are in possession of knowledge yet to be publicly disclosed, then surely those matters pertain to highly sensitive activities and would best be handled discreetly. Discreetly as in out of the public eye and away from the licentious press. Discreet isn’t a dirty word, after all, “discreet” does have legitimate purpose, and this would seem an occasion to address any counter-terrorism efforts discreetly.
Honestly, it makes absolutely zero sense for Americans to get all up in arms over PRISM and the other “revelations” revealed when they blithely accept private sector incursions of civil liberties in the workplace that are no less, and at times even more targeted and egregious and which lead to actual injustice and harm to the individual. Not to mention having every consumer’s movement, every transaction tracked and monitored by the private sector 24/7. If there’s any bellyaching to be done about counter-terrorism efforts like PRISM, then start rallying for concomitant desistance of private sector surveillance of employees and consumers. That is, if “civil liberties,” really is truly the concern.
“James Clapper’s Tip for Avoiding Lies: Don’t Do Talking Points”
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/06/07/james-clappers-tip-for-avoiding-lies-dont-do-talking-points/
“…Honestly, it makes absolutely zero sense for Americans to get all up in arms over PRISM and the other “revelations” revealed when they blithely accept private sector incursions of civil liberties in the workplace that are no less, and at times even more targeted and egregious and which lead to actual injustice and harm to the individual….”
“Private sector,” learned their lesson back in 2009, “The Guy Who Refused to Wiretap Illegally Is Off to Jail.”
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/25/the-guy-who-refused-to-wiretap-illegally-is-off-to-jail/
PJ, a little gift from your pal Glenn about the “private sector.”
“US supreme court finalizes gift of immunity to the telecom giants
Yet again, the Congress, courts, executive branch and the establishment media work together to protect the nation’s most powerful actors”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/10/supreme-court-telecoms-win-immunity
From the “unconscionable” Greenwald link:
“…The way things are supposed to work is that we’re supposed to know virtually everything about what they do: that’s why they’re called public servants. They’re supposed to know virtually nothing about what we do: that’s why we’re called private individuals.
This dynamic – the hallmark of a healthy and free society – has been radically reversed. Now, they know everything about what we do, and are constantly building systems to know more. Meanwhile, we know less and less about what they do, as they build walls of secrecy behind which they function. That’s the imbalance that needs to come to an end. No democracy can be healthy and functional if the most consequential acts of those who wield political power are completely unknown to those to whom they are supposed to be accountable….”
PJ, surprised you didn’t mention this:
@anildash Good news: We now have a complete record of all online gun transactions!
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas: “As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight, when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we must be aware of the change in the air-however slight-lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglas
John,
Ron Wyden, the bold defender of liberties? Not. Mild-Mannered Grandstander and Closet Privatizer yes. If only his interrogations of the USTR during the TPP hearings were just as formidable for sniffing out the stink in the TPP. Wyden is pushing the intelligence community for information he already knows. Udall is another one – an absolutely irresponsible and disingenuous legislator who has learned a great deal about obstructionism from the other side of the aisle when it comes to FISA. And then there’s Merkley who thinks FISA opinions should be declassified. Sorry I can’t concur. I have to say, again, this is the insensible approach to government that Madison railed against – specifically when it came to the security of the state. The public shouldn’t know everything the intelligence community does, period. With what we do know – there isn’t a single, solitary instance of wrongful intrusion or inappropriate targeting or ensuing damage to any individual from PRISM. When there is I’ll evaluate it, weigh it and judge it. Until then incessantly howling about “civil liberties violations” just doesn’t square with the underpinnings of the Constitution.
John Dickinson comes to mind, writing as Fabius (defending the Constitution) in 1788:
“As in forming a political society, each individual contributes some of his rights, in order that he may form a common stock of rights, derive greater benefits than he could from merely his own, so in forming a confederation each political society should contribute such a share of their rights, as will from a common stock of these rights, produce the largest quantity of benefits from them.
But what is his share? and, how to be managed? Momentous questions! Here, flattery is treason; and error, destruction.”
Note: I took the liberty (if you’ll excuse the term) of removing five commas so this passage would be easier to read.
I’ll tell you what I think, John. There are a lot of American citizens who give a helluva lot in the service of counter-terrorism and the American public may never know who they are and what they do. I think it’s pretty shit-pitiful that any American individual would find it so heinous their own individual information might be passed over – on the way to information that isn’t passed over – that they’ll invoke (and in my opinion) abuse the claim of civil liberties. From what I can glean PRISM isn’t “police state” and it isn’t “Nixonian.” If it turns out to be, then the public will need to evaluate, assess and render judgement on what is demonstrable and what is known – at that time. If it happens, I’ll shift course as needed. But even then, this constant flurry of civil liberties hysteria over national security and over every other non-controversial government action is counterproductive and corrosive. The intent of the Bill of Rights wasn’t to engender an obsessive adherence to some sort of American-variety narcissism.
The IRS isn’t the enemy, the intelligence community isn’t the enemy, teachers aren’t the enemy, public sector unions aren’t the enemy – these are all political intimidations emanating from the same source. I will say it again, the greatest threats to liberty and freedom this nation faces aren’t firstly governmental. The greatest threats to liberty and freedom are subverting the proper objects of government. Anyone who thinks weakening the government’s ability to proactively confront crime or terrorism in the name of civil liberties isn’t in effect thwarting an object of government directly conducive to the public good doesn’t understand how complicated either of those objectives are.
What you are talking about is transparency and I’d agree with you 99%. Not when it comes to the intelligence sphere. If the American people decide it doesn’t want government to classify information or to engage in national security – hey whatever. I’d deem that foolish to the point of childish, but I’d say alrighty then. Until then, I have every confidence that the intelligence community isn’t insidiously working against the public interest and it is extremely cognizant of the fine line it need tread.
As to Greenwald – he has his moments. This isn’t one of them. Reporting on national security procedures isn’t news and it isn’t transparency and it isn’t responsible journalism. Insisting that the world has a right to know how the American government conducts its counter-terrorism initiatives isn’t “This dynamic – the hallmark of a healthy and free society.” As to his “the way things are supposed to work” – nice little fantasy narrative but it’s never worked that way. The Constitutional debates were conducted in secret. The developing framework of the new government was strictly secret and the delegates divulged nothing to the public until the framework was complete. Ya ever hear of something called “loose lips sink ships” -? Please. Listen if you don’t trust the government to know everything about you, you can’t trust it with anything ever. Do you really believe the government gives a rat’s ass about your private life? Hmm. Private individuals. I’m wondering just Greenwald might mean by that. LIke those hermits who are islands unto themselves who never intersect with anyone else in society? Like anyone has the right to do anything they damn well please in the privacy of their own home? That kind of private individual?
It isn’t the government that’s at issue. It’s the representatives the people elect that are at issue. The hallmark of a healthy and free society is an educated populace able to wisely elect its representatives. Representatives are elected – they are accountable by virtue of their ability to be re-elected or by their removal from office after proven misconduct. I’m fairly certain I could demonstrate ad nauseum how the creators of this government designed accountability into the system, and I’m fairly certain psychotic oversight wouldn’t be among the features of “good government.” Trust, on the other hand, would be. This government wasn’t designed for the people to mistrust it, nor was this government designed to give free license to citizens, non-citizens, or businesses, or speculators to do whatever they damn well please.
4th Amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Operative words SECURE and UNREASONABLE neither of which PRISM jeopardizes. There’s no arbitrary or biased principle at work here. If there is it hasn’t been revealed. And you are going to make some further commentary, I presume, on precisely how Sir Edward Coke’s landmark decision of 1604 applies to 21st Century counter-terrorism initiatives? Please do. Cite Entick and Carrington from 1765 while you’re at it, don’t forget what THAT decision concluded – that the government was prohibited from doing what was beyond established law. All three branches of our government established PRISM as lawful. Are you’re suggesting there’s some consonance between writs of assistance and PRISM? And like it or not, the Fourth Amendment isn’t a license to do whatever you will in the confines of your own home as “a private individual.” Or were you not truly outraged by the human trafficking article you cited on a previous post? Think that trafficking takes place only at the Super Bowl?
Please John, and I’m not being facetious when I ask, explain to me how progressive it is to oppose a program like PRISM which does not intrude or interfere with one’s person in the least? And if data-mining is so intrusive why is it that you and Rand Paul haven’t been calling for restoration of the 4th Amendment years ago when the private sector had successively year after year refined its myriad practices of data mining? Or is “market potential” a reasonable “probable cause” for tracking every purchase Americans make or every online search Americans make or every website Americans access?
PJ: “Operative words SECURE and UNREASONABLE neither of which PRISM jeopardizes.”
How do you know?
PJ: “There’s no arbitrary or biased principle at work here.”
How do you know?
PJ “If there is it hasn’t been revealed.”
Yep.
PJ: “And you are going to make some further commentary, I presume, on precisely how Sir Edward Coke’s landmark decision of 1604 applies to 21st Century counter-terrorism initiatives? Please do. Cite Entick and Carrington from 1765 while you’re at it, don’t forget what THAT decision concluded – that the government was prohibited from doing what was beyond established law.”
Having trouble finding precedents after we won the Revolution?
PJ: “All three branches of our government established PRISM as lawful.”
“All three branches of our government established” slavery as “lawful.”
“All three branches of our government established,” Japanese internment camps as, “lawful.”
Until the Civil Rights Acts of 1960’s, “all three branches of our government established” white and male supremacy as lawful. I never heard of anyone going to prison for running a chain gang. http://www.slaverybyanothername.com
No one on Wall Street has even been indicted for crashing the economy in 2008.
PJ: “Are you’re suggesting there’s some consonance between writs of assistance and PRISM?
Please define “consonance.”
PJ: And like it or not, the Fourth Amendment isn’t a license to do whatever you will in the confines of your own home as “a private individual.”
I never said it was.
PJ: “Or were you not truly outraged by the human trafficking article you cited on a previous post? Think that trafficking takes place only at the Super Bowl?”
Since it is taking place, why isn’t “Prism” catching any of those traffickers? FBI caught Eliott Spitzer.
PJ: “Please John, and I’m not being facetious when I ask, explain to me how progressive it is to oppose a program like PRISM which does not intrude or interfere with one’s person in the least?”
It’s un-American not to oppose obvious violations of the 4th Amendment.
PJ: “And if data-mining is so intrusive why is it that you and Rand Paul haven’t been calling for restoration of the 4th Amendment years ago
Rand was only elected to the Senate in 2012. You can find me in the comments at Firedoglake opposing the FISA Amendment that Obama voted for in 2008.
PJ: “….when the private sector had successively year after year refined its myriad practices of data mining?”
At least not yet, the private sector cannot hire private law enforcement to invade your home and arrest you, a private judiciary to convict you, and a private prison to incarcerate you.
PJ: “Or is “market potential” a reasonable “probable cause” for tracking every purchase Americans make or every online search Americans make or every website Americans access?”
Please read the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Obama’s Sec. of Commerce, Peggy Pritzker, belongs to a family that owns a credit bureau, Trans Union. If you give someone “permissible purpose,” they can look at your credit history. If you’re not happy with that arrangement, you can pay cash. In order for the GOVERNMENT to get that information, they used to need a warrant.
I am not sure why the left is so upset this is exactly what you voted for by electing this man twice. He is giving all of you the country you were asking for. More government controlling your lives, freedoms diminished.
John, you’re not a righty.
If you were, you’d be noting Wayne LaPierre’s silence about the government having online gun transactions.
Am glad to learn, however, that you are pro-choice and pro-marriage equality.
John,
Consonance – compatibility, agreement in character, inherent similarity
You cited the 4th Amendment so my assumption is we are discuss what it means and what concerns it intended to address. I cited English law precedent on which it was based. From there perhaps there’s a way to understand what the 4th Amendment was intended to do – as in how the 4th Amendment may address current conditions. Perhaps the 4th Amendment doesn’t adequately address our 21st century needs. It wouldn’t take much to sway me to that position. But to insist that the logic underscoring the 4th Amendment is somehow transferrable to all 21st Century concerns is a construction with which I cannot concur. Perhaps the 4th Amendment can apply to PRISM, at the moment I don’t see how it does. We don’t need precedents following the Revolution. We need to understand what the 4th Amendment was intended to do.
Working with what we know/what has or has not been revealed – You are reasoning a priori about PRISM and you seem to entirely disregard what we do know. If we were to operate a priori in the manner you’d suggest we’d have no reasoning ever to justify any law/action we might ever undertake. What we do know is that PRISM has never damaged or injured any individual American citizen during the tenure of its operation. We do know that it is (or was) the most effective counter-terrorism operation to date. We can reasonably infer that PRISM had the potential to be a game-changer in an extremely complicated and challenging sphere of security. We cannot reasonably infer that PRISM is injurious to individual American citizens or that its purpose is to intentionally harm individual American citizens. We cannot infer that PRISM has interfered with individual lives at all or in any way that would directly or indirectly impact an individual’s own choices, decisions, or pursuits.
You don’t know if PRISM operates on an arbitrary or biased principle. Yep. Until you do you are going to assume that it does. Yep. So, given what little you know, you are prepared to prohibit the intelligence community from operating in a manner they obviously deem fit? Yep. On this point we will have to agree to disagree. I have a great deal of trust and respect for the intelligence community. I think they know what they’re doing better than you do. Sorry, John.
If we as a society sanction the government in classifying information or maintaining state secrets then we are giving them license to keep the American public in the dark. To adopt the position that the government is insidiously deceiving the American public to achieve some unnamable but hideous end doesn’t make any sense. The NSA is doing its job – what it is intended to do. Adopting the position that they’re not, that the NSA purposively operates against the public interest (or the individual) because it engages in such a way as to keep the public uninformed isn’t reasonable – it doesn’t fit any pattern of logic. Again, if the American public chooses not to sanction national security or the classifying of information, I’d say go ahead. Like Thomas Jefferson said (and I’m paraphrasing) – I’ll go down with the ship but I’d prefer we prevent it from sinking.
“All three branches of our government established slavery as lawful.” And how did you come by that reading given your slavery link – “Now we must understand that slavery in the United States was not legal or illegal until the states made it so.” That’s probably more accurate. But I’m not quite sure this quite matches what we know about rights: “Remember, a right is God-given. It is not something that can be legislated.” While natural or original rights would be concepts that the Constitution was grounded in – that those rights cannot not be legislated certainly is not. If that were so, we’d not have so much jurisprudence establishing limitations on rights – whether those are good decisions or no is immaterial.
“All three branches of our government established Japanese internment camps.” Did they? Were Japanese internment camps established through any legislative or judicial processes or by executive order? I believe it was by executive order and later was, at least in part, rectified legislatively. Honestly, I can’t speak to that one so well. You may be more familiar with the subject than I. Perhaps you can clarify that example in addressing your core objection – your examples tell us what exactly – there’s something inherently “what” with our system of government? What are these historical examples telling you? What is it about these examples that relates to PRISM? I am not catching your drift, so to speak – in terms of process, I guess. You seem to be saying that because the government has behaved shamefully in the past, the government is behaving shamefully now. Is this what you are trying to say?
Consider too the Greenwald piece on corporate immunity you posted. An excellent piece for drawing what I would consider the critical distinction – and that is the proper object of government (and where we’ll likely disagree, but that’s okay – I’m still open to you changing my mind)… Greenwald draws attention to subversion of object/perversion of the government’s role in securing rights or interest.
I would maintain that PRISM doesn’t subvert the role of government, quite the contrary it does everything we want government to do – and it defies the canard that the government is incapable of innovation. If the government’s role isn’t to prevent crime or to prevent terrorism from being committed against the American public, whose role is it? If it isn’t the government’s role to devise effective measures to prevent crime and terrorism whose role is it?
Some ad nauseum to ponder:
“Security against foreign danger is one of the most primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils.” ~ James Madison
In other words, “Duh.” And further…
“How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? the means of security can only be regulated by the means and danger of the attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others.”
In other words, “Doink.”
What Madison is saying here is basically this: presuming tyranny is an inherent component of federal authority in establishing its security apparatus pretty much negates the government from ever acting or ever preparing for any potential or current threat. Assuming that the apparatus designed to protect the public from danger will act against the public at some future date is to accept a cynicism that will forever prevent the government from fulfilling the most rudimentary of functions for maintaining civilization. Really, he was putting it very kindly. In effect what he says is this: As a society of individuals we can construct foundations upon which to progressively build or we can organize ourselves like rubes. I think he was right, and his observation entirely applies to our context today.
The Bill of Rights is great. But its inclusion was never intended to mean that “individual rights” are so untouchably “sovereign” that they override public good. While you say you never said the Fourth Amendment isn’t a license to do whatever you will in the confines of your own home, you provided a link that suggests that it does.
Your Greenwald quote about “the way things are supposed to work” contains a number of implications, among them – the 4th Amendment renders the individual immune from any government “interference” because “They’re supposed to know virtually nothing about what we do: that’s why we’re called private individuals.” No. This construction implies that within the confines of one’s own domicile the individual is free to do whatever that individual may wish with or without societal sanction. The Bill of Rights allows for liberty – and a lot of it – but not libertine. American citizens are not “free” to do what society doesn’t sanction through the rule of law in the “privacy” of their own homes. The 4th Amendment establishes the rule of law for a society of individuals AND its representative governing body.
This is a side point, not quite on point, but speaks to a developing pattern of thought on both the left and the right, one that doesn’t accord with founding principles: Greenwald’s construction distorts the nature of representation twofold. On the one hand, the familiarity with what “interest” means so as to faithfully represent it. The idea of “representation” is to have quite an intimate familiarity with the factors that impact the individual lives of “private” individuals. To some degree we may consider it the sphere of legislative influence. Of oversight. The role of the government is not to back off or not to interfere, but to actively and energetically promote the interests of its citizens. The other – how to reconcile multiple “interests.” This aspect insists that the government does not promote one interest at the expense of another. The next level, the more destructive aspect, the devolution of principle embedded in Greenwald’s reading (and which the Framers addressed) is: does a representative of Virginia represent the interests of Virginians or does that representative of Virginia represent all Americans? How does the government conjoin disparate interests?
One component lies within the interests themselves. What the framers of the Constitution stressed in its defense was that it order for this framework to succeed – the citizen, the individual must be prepared to surrender some aspect of his/her own interest, to regard one’s interest as a component of the larger interest of the whole. And that included one’s highest right and highest duty – voting. That when one casts a vote, one ought not cast a vote for one’s component interest, but must cast a vote for the greater interest – the greater good. To do otherwise would mean Americans are to conduct themselves from a position of “insulated patriotism” which would toxify the Constitutional system “as to doubt – whether the general benefits can be communicated by a general government.” as Dickinson put it.
Wilson put it this way: “Let no one say, that he is but a single citizen; and that his ticket will be but one in the box. That one ticket may turn the election. In battle, every soldier should consider the public safety as depending on his single arm. At an election, every citizen should consider the public happiness on depending on his single vote.”
and this way: “All the derivative movements of government must spring from the original movement of the people at large. If, to this, they give sufficient force and a just direction, all the others will be governed by its controuling power.”
Greenwald’s construction of tyranny/government/individual locates tyranny solely within the representative apparatus of government. But that construction entirely distorts the Constitutional framework designed to delimit tyranny. In order for the government to remain tyranny-free its citizenry must remain tyranny-free. The Constitution was designed for more government intervention – not less. It was designed to rectify the too distant, loose, fragile, and inept capacity of the Articles of Confederation – which could not (for a great many reasons) act adequately on behalf of its citizens.
Why hasn’t PRISM caught traffickers? I imagine trafficking isn’t its focus. As I said, it would seem to me that PRISM had the potential for expansion.
Your answer to my plea for you to articulate your opposition – “It’s un-American not to oppose obvious violations of the 4th Amendment…” Agreed. But you haven’t established anything about the 4th Amendment. You haven’t established that PRISM has violated it. Now, if you wish to say that there is some principle(s) about PRISM that contradicts what the 4th Amendment intended to prevent or conversely what the 4th Amendment intended to promote, please do. I don’t see how the 4th Amendment can possibly apply other than a narcissistic reading of individual rights where the government is always rendered “enemy of the people.”
Regarding your opposition to FISA: Is this an answer to the question asked? Or is your response “theory of consent?” Suffice it to say you haven’t convinced me that PRISM has violated the 4th Amendment or that PRISM represents intolerably unconscionable action on the part of the intelligence community. But I’ll grant you this – it indeed may.
John,
I’ve been noodling on this for a while. Here’s one beef I have with Greenwald: He accepts a non-polis construction of individual rights. It’s a point that I attempted to illustrate, but perhaps I didn’t do so well. The kind of elevation of the individual Greenwald posits would be abhorrent to the Framers of this government. What they fervently tried to do was to create a governing body for an American polis absent an aristocracy which was more consolidated than the confederated Greek city states. Excising the Greek element from the founding notion of our republic entirely distorts, mangles, and subverts how the Constitution is constructed; subsequently how it is to operate as a governing document but more importantly, how America (as a society of individuals) is to function in relation to it.
Second, he insists that the public is to know everything that the government does. But, this is an ahistorical, though arguable, assumption:
The Constitution of the United States: Article I, Section 5
“Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.”
Obviously this clause pertains specifically to the legislative branch. It was debated and agreed to on August 11, 1787 In Convention. Rhode Island didn’t send any delegates, and New York’s delegation was apparently absent. Not surprising in Alexander Hamilton’s case, he was often absent. A month prior, the other two delegates, Lansing and Yates, entirely abandoned the Convention in protest of the new framework that was developing. Anyway, meaning that 11 of the 13 states voted on the above Article. 1 divided, 6 in favor, 4 against.
The motion for secrecy was Madison’s so it is no surprise that Virginia voted yes. The more interesting thing is what the smartest man in the room had to say on the matter, from Madison’s notes:
“Mr. Wilson thought the expunging of the clause would be very improper. The people have a right to know what their Agents are doing and have done, and it should not be in the option of the Legislature to conceal their proceedings. Besides as this is a clause in the existing confederation, the not retaining it would furnish the adversaries of the reform with a pretext by which weak and suspicious minds may be easily misled.”
To be clear, the clause in question pertains to the publishing of the journal; apparently not to Madison’s first motion: “that each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and shall publish the same from time to time; except such part of the proceedings of the Senate, when not acting in its legislative capacity as may be judged by that House to require secrecy.”
That motion was voted down seemingly on the grounds that the senate might exceed its authority by acting in a capacity other than legislative. The revised motion, “except such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy” did pass with the support of Madison, but without the support of the smartest man in the room – Wilson or the wisest man in the room – Franklin.
As interesting is that these are also among the most experienced men in the room with respect to national security and espionage.
Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, John Dickinson, and John Langdon all served on the Secret Committee established by the Second Continental Congress on September 18, 1775. Franklin also served on the Committee of Secret Correspondence established November 29, 1775. James Wilson served on the Committee on Spies established June 5, 1776.
Franklin, Morris, and Wilson served as Pennsylvania delegates – Pennsylvania voted no on the secrecy provision.
John Dickinson served as one of the Delaware delegates – Delaware voted no on the secrecy provision.
John Langdon was one of two New Hampshire delegates – New Hampshire’s vote on the secrecy provision was divided.
You can draw your own conclusions. I’m just putting this out there as food for thought. My conclusion is that the majority won over the smartest, wisest, and most experienced men in the room. I suppose it is this kind of irony we must confront if we are to negotiate what it means to be a republican democracy.
“99 Percent Of Booz Allen Hamilton’s Revenue Comes From The Federal Government”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/booz-allen-hamilton-revenue_n_3415451.html?utm_hp_ref=business
Thanks for this.
You guys just got to realize that Obama defines “foreigners” a bit differently than you might.
A “foreigner” is an “uninvited Caucasian European Imperialist” to our President. Once you view things thru that prism, the focused goals of all the recent issues become highly logical … and effective.