1. They thought they needed a wiretap
2. They initiated the wiretap
3. Within 72 hours after initiating the wire-tap, they had to notify the FISA court about the wiretap. The info was reviewed, and the court decided whether to let the wiretapping continue.

In the history of the court, only a handfull of wiretaps were ever stopped. No one but Bush had ever thought this procedure was too onerous to follow.

My phone conversations are really boring, as I don’t do drugs or break laws. I would still consider it a violation of my privacy if the line was tapped.

I have enough problems with targeted marketing.

–Eric Hoffer

But let’s suppose I was concerned about losing my civil rights. Let’s suppose I was worried that some federal wire-tapper might hear me talking to a marijuana dealer. (Why don’t we just honestly confess the exact nature of our “civil rights� concerns?) How much is that civil right worth compared to the lives of the people that will die in a successful terrorist attack?

Much free-speech and warrant law has come about in the context of government using someone’s *noncriminal* actions against them. The FBI spent 38 years investigating the Socialist Party without ever filing a charge; that investigation came to be viewed as abuse and harassment, and was shut down. Nixon and the FBI almost never brought charges based on their CoIntelPro surveillance — instead they used what they found to harass, undermine and blackmail antiwar activists. People lost their homes and their jobs because of it. FBI agents would send anonymous letters to the wives of activists saying their husband was having affairs, for instance.

Joe McCarthy and the HUAC was all about embarassing and silencing people, not about bringing provable charges of wrongdoing.

Warrantless surveillance is not okay just because the information is never used in court. If the government has no business listening in on a conversation, then it has no business listening — even if it never acts on what it learns.

Your argument about there being a 100% chance of someone dying in a successful terrorist attack is specious, IMO. Obviously, if there is a successful terrorist attack, people will die. But you are arguing that “unless the NSA is allowed to conduct warrantless wiretapping, there will be a successful attack.” Which is totally unprovable, and doesn’t address either the expected frequency and scope of terror attempts or whether the security/rights tradeoff is worthwhile.

Living in a free society entails more risks than living in a society dedicated entirely to security. Noting that any given freedom potentially increases our risks is a tautology, not a serious argument.

To make it a serious argument, you have to quantify the value of the liberty vs. the risk of an attack, and demonstrate why this particular intrusion is a reasonable and necessary step that will make us significantly safer.

Frankly, I have little problem with what we know about the fundamental workings of the program. Monitoring 500 people who are linked to known or suspected terrorists? Fine; sounds like a good idea, driven by reasonable suspicions.

But we’re taking the administration’s word for it that that’s all they’re doing, and how they’re doing it. I think that’s stupid because of the history outlined above, not to mention constitutionally suspect.

So monitor the 500 people; but GET A WARRANT TO DO IT!

I happen to think that *warrantless* wiretapping is unnecessary to fighting terror. We have plenty of weapons at our disposal already, and there’s no need to give the government powers that it is almost guaranteed to abuse. I think the near-certainty of such abuse outweighs whatever minor increased risk of a terror attack it may bring.

Finally, even if you disagree with my weighting of the various factors, I think it is entirely improper for such a program to be established by executive fiat. If we’re going to allow warrantless wiretapping, it should be a Congressional decision subject to meaningful judicial oversight — not an executive decision subject to little more than internal review by the same executive that established it in the first place.

I apologize for the tenor of my objection to your post. It annoyed me because talk about “climate of fear” and “governing through fear” sounds to me like something a DNC spokesman would read off a cue-card.

“Partisan” was a poor choice of words, because I don’t really object to people being partisan. I think this blog is, in fact, of interest to partisans of all types – Reps, Dems, and even Libertarians – who are interested in hearing what other partisan people are saying and looking for points of common agreement.

I can’t find any point of agreement with you on this issue, because claiming that concerns about terrorism are the result of fear-mongering is a non-starter for dialogue. It shows a profound lack of empathy for the tragedy that befell this country, and a frivolous attitude towards security issues that both conservative and liberals (and even Libertarians) take very seriously.

But I’m not going to sell my civil liberties quite as cheaply as you are prepared to.

I haven’t sold any civil liberties. I still got a full set. But then, I don’t have financial ties to the Hisballah-run Lebanese drug trade, and I’m not currently involved in any plots to blow up the Golden Gate bridge.

But let’s suppose I was concerned about losing my civil rights. Let’s suppose I was worried that some federal wire-tapper might hear me talking to a marijuana dealer. (Why don’t we just honestly confess the exact nature of our “civil rights” concerns?) How much is that civil right worth compared to the lives of the people that will die in a successful terrorist attack?

Before you make the deal, remember this: Your chances of having a single civil hair on your head disturbed are tiny. (Frankly, Big Brother really doesn’t care about you very much, even if you are the biggest pot connection in Littleville, NC.) But the chances of someone else getting killed by a successful terrorist attack are effectively 100%.

Yes, of course, there is only an infinitesimal chance that one of those people will be YOU. The chances that it will be someone else’s mother, brother, or loved one is 99.999999999999999999%!

So how cheaply are you willing to sell the lives of your fellow human beings, Sean, to protect yourself from whatever highly improbable thing is threatening you?

I have no problem with reasonable accomodations — streamlining the process for getting surveillance on terror suspects, for instance. I support a vigorous campaign against terrorism. It doesn’t bother me when a CIA drone takes out a cell in Yemen, whatever sovereignty questions that may raise.

But I’m not going to sell my civil liberties quite as cheaply as you are prepared to.

But the average American’s chance of dying in a terrorist attack in any given year is vanishingly small � on the order of 0.00008% or so.

So that’s how the moral calculus works?

Your chances of getting tortured are vastly less than your chances of being injured by a lawnmower. So what are all these complaints we’ve been hearing about people being tortured?

Your chances of being scary enough to get wire-tapped by the government – with or without a warrant – are also vanishingly small. Utterly insignificant, compared to your chances of getting audited by the IRS or having your car stolen. I trust that settles all of your civil rights concerns permanently.

Of course, it depends on who you identify with. I felt very bad for Jon Benet Ramsey, even though I’m an adult and my chances of being killed by a child molester are EXACTLY ZERO. I guess if I were a good Democrat, I would be smart enough to realize that it is totally impossible for that to ever happen to me, so it’s silly for me to care about it.

I also cared when 3000 New Yorkers were savagely murdered, even though I haven’t spent enough time in New York to even have a decent statistical chance of getting hit by a taxi cab.

And yet, my compassion is not infinite. I admit that I am less moved when an unpleasant fate befalls some terrorist butcher who thinks that God will reward him for cutting off people’s heads with a dull knife. I am also somewhat insensitive to the civil liberty woes of terrorist sympathizers who finance Hamas and Hisballah by selling meth amphetamine to Native American children. Do that make me a bad person?

There will always be some trade-off of freedom and security. The question that should confront us is “does this make us more secure? And is it worth the cost?”

9/11 was horrible. But the average American’s chance of dying in a terrorist attack in any given year is vanishingly small — on the order of 0.00008% or so.

Even if we had one 9/11 a year it would add up to a 1 in 100,000 risk. That’s lower than your chances of being stabbed to death.

Terrorism isn’t a random accident, of course. And it has a wider impact than the simple death toll. I’m willing to commit an outsized amount of resources to prevent terror attacks and catch and punish those who plan them.

But when it comes to civil liberties, I’m not willing to give up that much given the risk involved.

It’s a testament to the stability of our nation and the pervasiveness of our freedoms that so many Americas are so incredibly unafraid of their own government. A lot of people who may say it’s fine if the government scans our emails for suspicious keywords, say so because they cannot imagine their government ever abusing such a power.

I personally believe that there cannot be full freedom without robust privacy, but I’ve found that such an idea can seem rather abstract in the face of the very real threat of terrorism.

Those of use who wish we’d fight this war with very little erosion of our freedoms should not fall into the trap of thinking everyone would naturally agree with us if not for the fear-mongering of the right wing. There has been some fear mongering, yes, but the real reason for poll results such as these is that there is real fear based on real threats.

The key is to find useful ways to persuade people that they need not give up their freedoms to be secure. Trying to minimize their fear and paint it as a partial illusion will not work.

Looks like the climate of fear approach to governing is working pretty well doesn’t it?

Because Islamic fascist terrorists are just a myth, and if we don’t do anything about it in 20 years it will all go away. Its all a bushitlerburton plot to justify controlling the worlds oil supply and giving it to the jews.

Hear, Hear to Glen Wishard’s comment above.

34% of people in New York are worried about terrorism … because George Bush is scaring them? I have more respect for people who believe Bush blew up the World Trade Center – at least they believe in something.

This is another bowl of cold gruel from the people who don’t understand either freedom or security, and who would trade both for a shot at the White House.

Benjamin Franklin would slap you in the face.

To go to school my daughter needs a large number of vaccinations, how is adding one more a loss of an essential liberty?

By the way, these are the recommendations of the 9-11 commission report. Here is one example:

“Recommendation: Secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists”

You should actually read the report; it actually is an interesting read. It is available online at http://www.9-11commission.gov/