9 ms·

"No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done thi

"No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this. What is objectionable is a system in which government has unlimited and privileged access to the details of our private affairs, and citizens are simply supposed to trust that there won't be any abuse of power. This is an absurd expectation." I think one of the reasons we libertarians have had such a hard time over the years talking about the security state we're building is that Paul is right: this is absurd. People simply do not believe that such a thing is actually happening. Sure, they think, some bad guys are being monitored, and the usual crackpots are complaining, but overall the government is doing a good job. After all, there hasn't been another 9-11, right? I appreciate Paul's efforts, but we're going to need massive reform in the surveillance policies of the U.S. As a start we need something like another Church Committee. One thought is this: how about making it a felony not to disclose information that an agency is clearly violating the constitution.

mikegagnon 13y ago
> One thought is this: how about making it a felony not to disclose information that an agency is clearly violating the constitution. The obligation to whistle blow is usually an explicit part of "honor codes," such as "I will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do." The US military uses this honor code in various contexts, see for example US Navy's Bootcamp http://www.bootcamp.navy.mil/recruits.asp http://www.bootcamp.navy.mil/recruits.asp and Officer Candidate Guide, US Army National Guard http://dmna.ny.gov/arng/ocs/forms/ocs_guide.pdf http://dmna.ny.gov/arng/ocs/forms/ocs_guide.pdf In practice however, I believe authority usually interprets these honor codes as "snitch on your compatriots when they compromise authority", not "snitch on authority when they compromise your compatriots."
- RexRollman 13y ago
  We tell people that "I was just following orders" is no excuse for committing a crime but when someone stands up and brings attention to the fact that the government itself is violating the law, they are a traitor. It's sickening.
rayiner 13y ago
> "No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this. What we've always done is get warrants for searches. No warrants were required to monitor someone (say, to have a cop follow them around). That is still the case. The FISA warrants allow monitoring. An Article III warrant is still necessary for a real search. What's changes now is that people openly broadcast, in clear text, the kind of information that previously would've required a search pursuant to a warrant to find out. I understand why Rand Paul, as a libertarian, has to pretend that we're deviating from historical practice, though. It's much easier to redefine the status quo them claim you just want to go back to it than to admit that we face an unprecedented situation (protecting the privacy of a populace that seems happy to broadcast their private information all over the internet) which might require novel solutions.
- DanielBMarkham 13y ago
  I think the central question here is whether a democracy can endure a constant state of war where every part of our lives is catalogued and cross-indexed by the government. The rest of it is just a legal discussion around property rights and Rand Paul's strategy, both of which are not really germane. It doesn't work. It's not that it's illegal, it's not that Rand Paul has to take this position to glorify himself or whatever, it's simply that it doesn't work. You can get away with "novel solutions" that won't work long-term for a while, but not indefinitely. Setting up this permanent monitoring infrastructure amounts to a cataclysm for our grandchildren. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
  - lmg643 13y ago
    I think as long as Americans maintain a "zero tolerance" posture towards terrorism, this kind of security will always be justifiable, because the goal is zero events, versus accepting that some percentage "will happen." Nuclear terrorism is example #1 of why "by any means necessary" is considered appropriate for surveillance. Since it's hard to argue this will "never" happen, well, it justifies a lot. Whether that is right or wrong, I still don't know.
  - 13y ago

mikegagnon 13y ago

> One thought is this: how about making it a felony not to disclose information that an agency is clearly violating the constitution. The obligation to whistle blow is usually an explicit part of "honor codes," such as "I will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do." The US military uses this honor code in various contexts, see for example US Navy's Bootcamp http://www.bootcamp.navy.mil/recruits.asp http://www.bootcamp.navy.mil/recruits.asp and Officer Candidate Guide, US Army National Guard http://dmna.ny.gov/arng/ocs/forms/ocs_guide.pdf http://dmna.ny.gov/arng/ocs/forms/ocs_guide.pdf In practice however, I believe authority usually interprets these honor codes as "snitch on your compatriots when they compromise authority", not "snitch on authority when they compromise your compatriots."

RexRollman 13y ago
We tell people that "I was just following orders" is no excuse for committing a crime but when someone stands up and brings attention to the fact that the government itself is violating the law, they are a traitor. It's sickening.

rayiner 13y ago

> "No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this. What we've always done is get warrants for searches. No warrants were required to monitor someone (say, to have a cop follow them around). That is still the case. The FISA warrants allow monitoring. An Article III warrant is still necessary for a real search. What's changes now is that people openly broadcast, in clear text, the kind of information that previously would've required a search pursuant to a warrant to find out. I understand why Rand Paul, as a libertarian, has to pretend that we're deviating from historical practice, though. It's much easier to redefine the status quo them claim you just want to go back to it than to admit that we face an unprecedented situation (protecting the privacy of a populace that seems happy to broadcast their private information all over the internet) which might require novel solutions.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago
I think the central question here is whether a democracy can endure a constant state of war where every part of our lives is catalogued and cross-indexed by the government. The rest of it is just a legal discussion around property rights and Rand Paul's strategy, both of which are not really germane. It doesn't work. It's not that it's illegal, it's not that Rand Paul has to take this position to glorify himself or whatever, it's simply that it doesn't work. You can get away with "novel solutions" that won't work long-term for a while, but not indefinitely. Setting up this permanent monitoring infrastructure amounts to a cataclysm for our grandchildren. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- lmg643 13y ago
  I think as long as Americans maintain a "zero tolerance" posture towards terrorism, this kind of security will always be justifiable, because the goal is zero events, versus accepting that some percentage "will happen." Nuclear terrorism is example #1 of why "by any means necessary" is considered appropriate for surveillance. Since it's hard to argue this will "never" happen, well, it justifies a lot. Whether that is right or wrong, I still don't know.
- 13y ago