Pre-Emptive Surveillance(Great read!)

American Enterprise Institute ^ | August 21, 2006 | James Q. Wilson

[kellynla]

Federal district court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has ruled that the warrantless interception of telephone and Internet calls between a foreign agent and American persons is illegal and unconstitutional. It is possible that she is right about the illegality, but she is almost surely wrong that it is unconstitutional. The government has appealed this decision to the Sixth Circuit. No one can say what it will decide, although other appeals courts have tolerated such surveillance. Ultimately the Supreme Court will have to decide the matter.

The constitutional arguments against the surveillance are unpersuasive. A Washington Post editorial dismissed them as "throat clearing." Judge Taylor refers to the free speech provision of the First Amendment but fails to explain how listening to a conversation or reading email abridges anyone's right to speak. Taken literally, a constitutional ban on intercepts would make it impossible to overhear the mafia plotting murder or business executives fixing prices.

Of course, the ACLU and the other organizations that brought the suit are not criminal conspirators. But for their claims to be taken seriously they must show that they were materially harmed. This is because the Constitution only allows actual cases or controversies, not hypothetical or imaginary ones, to be heard in court. To meet that test, plaintiffs must show that they are the actual victims of a direct and palpable harm. Without that rule, judges would be issuing advisory opinions on what the law may mean, not in settling concrete disputes. Citing no factual evidence, Judge Taylor says that these organizations do have standing.

[kellynla]

"The war on terror is underway. It will last through my lifetime and that of my children. America will almost certainly suffer further terrorist attacks. We must be prepared to take reasonable steps to protect ourselves. The Constitution, as Justice Robert Jackson said, is not a suicide pact. But neither is it a blanket authorization for any executive action. Congress ought to be able to clarify how far we can go. It will be interesting to see who votes for and who against a reasonable authorization for a bolder antiterrorism measure."

[george76]

"... the ACLU and the other organizations that brought the suit are not criminal conspirators..."

Yes they are...

criminal co-conspirators helping the terrorists.

[hophead]

Her decision WILL be overturned without a doubt.