Patriot Act: Good or Bad?

[Robert Howard]

Anyone who has an old copy of "1984" to spare, send it to the Oakland Tribune. They need 537 copies for a worthwhile cause (and have written an excellent editorial):

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/oped/ci_3337465

I sent a link to the Rense article to Andersen Cooper of CNN and mentioned that the story never seemed to get any attention in the USA, I also referenced the pathetic situation regarding the US Media coverage of 'unpopular stories, (as in unpopular to the current administration) and added that I hoped he wouldnt be part of the crowd. I don't expect anything to come of it, but I gave it a shot. My reasoning was that he certainly appeared to be the only major media person adequately covering the Katrina debacle.

In the spirit of the Holiday Season,

"It's starting to look a lot like Christmas, er I mean "NSA-Gate"

See Story.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...ter_911_report/

Also, the Bush Administration has instructed the Dept. of Justice to investigate how the New York Times 'obtained classified information concerning the NSA Wiretaps', a day or so ago, does this mean that the Bush Administration, besides declaring a 'War on Terrorism' has subsequently declared a 'War on Investigative Journalism?'

It sure seems so, and they said that Nixon had chutzpah, geez.

Edited January 2, 2006 by Robert Howard

[Tim Gratz]

It must be remembered that we are in a war aginst terrorism.

I would stipulate that we must be careful not to go too far in trading freedom for security. Nonetheless I am confident most Americans would be willing to allow certain trade-offs to protect not only their lives but the lives of their fellow citizens.

We all remember "Big Brother Is Watching You" from 1984, a great illustration of the totalitarian state. Perhaps with respect to electronic eavesdropping of telephone calls or electronic messages the slogan would be: "Big Brother Is Listening To You". Never mind the slogan, however, would I be willing to trade away my freedom of knowing my phone calls were not being monitored to allow the government to discover a phone call from one terrorist to another regarding where to plant a nuclear device in a major American city? You bet I would. A small price to pay to protect the lives of millions of innocent Americans.

Do I believe that in the interest of national security and safety from terrorism the government should be able to imprison me and not let me plead my case before an independent judge and represented by an attorney of my choice? No, that thought scares me.

But I believe most Americans would be willing to allow some sacrifice of traditional privacy from government intrusion to ensure the safety of their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

It must also be remembered that since 9-11 there has been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

Edited January 2, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Len Colby]

The problem Tim is that the Bush administration evesdreopped without any judicial review a violation of the FISA law. Bush claims that a law passed a few days after 9/11 overrode that prevision but most legal experts and many congressmen and senators disagree. According to Kerry Bush asked for permission for warrentless evesdropping but even in the aftermath of America's worst terrorist attack was rebuffed. The administration even kept the legal board that normally reviews such descisions "out of the loop". Bush's actions have been questioned by Rebublican legislators and by members of his own administration.

Let's not forget that under FISA the NSA can apply for warrants 72 hours after begining wiretaps and the court has only said no 3 - 5 times (accounts vary) out of about 18,000 applications. The NSA complains that FISA warrants are too complicated but they also have the option of apply for warrants using the regular court system which is less burreucratic.

You can spin the terrorist attack thing various ways. It is also true that never had any country been the victim of such a devistating terrorist attack nor had the US ever been subject to a foriegn terrorist attack with more that a handful of causulties before W became president. IIRC it was also the first time a foriegn terrorist group that taken control of planes in the US in nearly 30 years

It must be remembered that we are in a war aginst terrorism.

I would stipulate that we must be careful not to go too far in trading freedom for security. Nonetheless I am confident most Americans would be willing to allow certain trade-offs to protect not only their lives but the lives of their fellow citizens.

We all remember "Big Brother Is Watching You" from 1984, a great illustration of the totalitarian state. Perhaps with respect to electronic eavesdropping of telephone calls or electronic messages the slogan would be: "Big Brother Is Listening To You". Never mind the slogan, however, would I be willing to trade away my freedom of knowing my phone calls were not being monitored to allow the government to discover a phone call from one terrorist to another regarding where to plant a nuclear device in a major American city? You bet I would. A small price to pay to protect the lives of millions of innocent Americans.

Do I believe that in the interest of national security and safety from terrorism the government should be able to imprison me and not let me plead my case before an independent judge and represented by an attorney of my choice? No, that thought scares me.

But I believe most Americans would be willing to allow some sacrifice of traditional privacy from government intrusion to ensure the safety of their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

It must also be remembered that since 9-11 there has been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

[Tim Gratz]

Len, I would agree with you that there is a difference between arguing that there should be a relaxation of constitutional privacy issues in view of the terrorist concerns and the question whether GB II acted constitutionally in authorizing the wiretaps.

I do not believe it is fair to blame GB II for 9-11 any more than it is to blame JFK for the BOP.

I think it is fair to blame Bill Clinton, however. I think he was paying too little attention to foreign affairs while he concentrated on domestic affairs.

[Len Colby]

Len, I would agree with you that there is a difference between arguing that there should be a relaxation of constitutional privacy issues in view of the terrorist concerns and the question whether GB II acted constitutionally in authorizing the wiretaps.

I do not believe it is fair to blame GB II for 9-11 any more than it is to blame JFK for the BOP.

I think it is fair to blame Bill Clinton, however. I think he was paying too little attention to foreign affairs while he concentrated on domestic affairs.

If you're going to play ther blame game let's not forget that Bush Jr. paid just about zero attention to terrorism from when he took office until 9 AM 9-11-01 and ended all pretense of being neutral in the Middle East. Bush apologists like to point out he had been in office for only 9 months but it its hard to deny that his policies made an attack like that more not less likely.

Are you arguing that Ike was to blame for the BOP?

[Robert Howard]

I wanted to respond to Tim's post which brings up some valid concerns about George Bush and the NSA Wiretaps issue.

First, if this administration had a perfect track record and obviously it doesent, I would still 'be very afraid' over the profound situation that exists in regard to the legality of his actions, it is my understanding that in 1978 Congress acted to prevent the Executive Branch of the government from abusing intelligence agencies i.e 'spying arbitrarily' on US Citizens. As far as I know, nothing has fundamentally changed since then regarding the legal process, correct me if I am wrong.

Second, the allegation is that the administration is basically circumventing the process, by 'in some cases' not obtaining authorization before performing some of the wiretaps, that this is so appears to be reflected by the fact that some NSA Staffers actually refused to comply with what was being asked of them. It would be fair to say that the NSA is not a 'far left' organization but a part of the intelligence sector of the US Government in which everyone is concerned with protecting our country from terrorism and other threats to our country and it's citizens. No-one including myself, has a problem with using the existing system in place to monitor 'threats to America's National Security.'

The Rosetta Stone of this issue hinges on the Bush Administrations assertions that the 'easing of restrictions' is necessary even though 'the difference' is simply continuing to obtain oversight approval from an independent oversight authority. So we are essentially being asked to implement a system where there are no 'checks and balances' because the administration 'say's its necessary.'

It is even asserted that the administration sought Ashcroft's 'de facto' legal authorization to do this, and even he refused to do so. Attorney General Gonzalez appears to have no such reservations. And if the allegation is true, then it appears to be to incorporate elements of deception as a tactic, which is not a pleasant thought.

Third, there are members of the Senate, (please do not ask me to report who they are, the information is readily accessible doing a search on the Internet using sources such as the NY Times and other major media outlet's) who have responded to the Presidents statements 'that he has been keeping members of Congress informed on the more pertinent aspects of the NSA wiretaps' is simply not so. These facts themselves require intense scrutiny in and of themselves.

Fourth, I'm assuming some Forum members have studiously read V. Bugliosi's 'The Betrayal of America; which is the real story of that dark blot on American history which I stipulate look's more like something from 1901 than 2001 (add in the fact that most American's didn't even know about the very ugly Inauguration Day scene, because the media decided we didn't need to know about that and a lot of us didn't know until Michael Moore's Farenheit 9-11,)

The fact that there are very bizarre events connected to 9-11 that we are still 'left in the lurch about,' even though I concede that there is a reason why covert actions are not public knowledge. (But the previous post Ron made about the Mossad/Bombing/Mexico) is not the first instance of Israel's covert activity that has surfaced unintentionally)

And lastly the fact that GHWB's records of his administration are 'sealed' and not even available under FOIA, and the same classified status is slated for our current administration, when it leaves office, leaves me at a loss for words as to how anybody can sleep comfortably at night, with this type of status quo, as the ostensible 'life in these United States.'

Edited January 2, 2006 by Robert Howard

[Mark Knight]

I simply cannot believe that Mr. Gratz can call the outright THEFT of freedom by ANY political administration to be merely the "relaxation" of consitutional rights. Or perhaps ideas of this nature--that the constitution contains NO rights that cannot be "relaxed" at the whim of any presidential administration--helped lead to the "relaxation" of his right to practice law...

Would the "relaxation" of Mr. Gratz's personal religious freedom be any LESS correct, if it could be justified under "war on terror" guidelines? NO, IT WOULD NOT...as ALL provisions of the US constitution should have equal standing!!! Yet Mr. Gratz would argue that some constitutional rights are apparently "more equal" than others. How genuinely Orwellian of him!!!

Mr. Gratz, the chasm between us is that my thoughts are less Orwellian and more Franklinian, that those who would sacrifice freedom for security TRULY deserve neither. [Perhaps that's why I could never bring myself to become a Republican...I'm not materialistic enough to believe that property should be valued above freedoms.] GENUINE patriots have fought, bled, and DIED to give us these freedoms that Mr. Gratz would so quickly throw away in the name of "security." I cannot, in the depths of my heart, understand how one can so callously GIVE away these hard-won freedoms, and thus cheapen the sacrifices of those who fought so valiantly for them, merely on the basis of a political party saying "Trust us--it's for your own good."

Maybe "...when they pry [them] from my cold, dead fingers," but NOT before!!!

In THAT light, Mr. Gratz, if that is how little you value the US constitution and the freedoms it grants to citizens, then I am ASHAMED to call you an American.

Edited January 2, 2006 by Mark Knight

[Len Colby]

There is no indication the men were there to bomb the congress and their behavior seems to indicate otherwise. Why would Mossad agents on bombing mission draw attention to themselves by taking photos of the sugar workers?

If they were carrying dynamite, detonators, etc. as reported, that would certainly indicate they were there to bomb the place. If they were there as consultants just to show this stuff to somebody, who were they going to show it to? Wouldn't that be relevant info in determining why they were there?

They were presumably going to talk to someone in the congress. How do you know that this wasn’t reported in the Mexican press or the newswire accounts summarized by Mr. . His article is no longer on his website but you could try getting in contact with him.

As for taking photos, first we were told that the sugar workers became suspicious because these two men were photographing the place. Then we are told they were photographing the workers themselves, which of course doesn't make any sense.

It’s a common practice for security services to take photos of demonstrators and of installations they are hired to protect. In any case it simply doesn’t make sense for agents carrying out a black op. to draw attention to themselves in this way esp. if they were from the Mossad which is known as one of the most efficient intelligence services in the world.

Why would they be carrying IDs with their real names?

Perhaps they didn't intend to get caught. Most criminals intend to get away. Perhaps they also knew that if caught, they were safe, as it turned out they were.

It turned out they were safe probably because they had a legitimate reason for being there. From all I’ve read it’s SOP for covert agents to assume false identities.

Why would they be carrying not very well concealed guns? Why would they be on the grounds of the Congress when it was full of people? This better fits the security consultant scenario than the bomber one.

It doesn't fit the consultant scenario because we don't know who they were supposedly consulting.

As I pointed out you don’t know that this wasn’t reported in the Mexican press. Also who ever was involved might not have wanted their name in the media, if Mexico is anything like Brazil government officials would not want to admit using a foreign security company.

As to how well concealed their weapons were, or being there when the place was full of people, their behavior may seem arrogant or foolish, but no more so than the British agents who were recently caught in Basra with explosives and dressed as Arabs, and opened fire when Iraqis dared to stop them. The British army then busted them out of jail. Do you suppose that those Brits were simply on their way to consult with someone, or were they rather on their way to contribute to the "insurgency" and got careless? We'll never know, because the story was killed, just like the story in Mexico was killed.

IIRC it was never proven that they had explosives, only guns and communications equipment etc. Their being dressed like Arabs makes sense if they were working undercover. Mexico City of course is a very different place than Basra and I can think of no logical reason for them to be carrying handguns and carry machine guns for a bombing mission. Planting explosives in public building full of people with out being detected would be difficult. Sneaking in at night or using car bomb, mortar or missile would be much easier

I can't believe that if it appeared these men were going to bomb the congress they would have been let go.

Why not? The U.S. government was apparently complicit in the slaughter of some 3,000 U.S. citizens on 9/11, and no one in the government has even been arrested for it. What could the Mexicans possibly do to top that?

There is no evidence that 9-11 was an inside job. If you want I will debate that with you on a separate thread. Not even Naom Chomsky believes that. But even if I accepted it was an inside job the situations are not analogous, even today only a small number of people believe that Bush was involved so there is no clamor for him or anyone else to be punished. The situation in Mexico was very different, the arrest of the two Israelis with explosives and a detonator was widely reported, if there wasn’t a convincing explanation for their presence what would have kept opposition politicians, esp. deputies who would have been intended victims, from raising a fuss and asking questions?

Also unanswered is what Israel would gain by bombing the Mexican Congress and blaming it on Al-Qaeda or what that terrorist group’s supposed motive would have been. According to you pro-Nazi sources Mexico was an important part of the "War on Terror" coalition but that isn't true.

Edited January 2, 2006 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

It must be remembered that we are in a war aginst terrorism. . . . I believe most Americans would be willing to allow some sacrifice of traditional privacy from government intrusion to ensure the safety of their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

It must also be remembered that since 9-11 there has been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

Tim,

Nice compilation of government propaganda cliches. But on the last one that you repeated (no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11), I must remind you that Dick Cheney promised the American sheeple that another attack is coming. Not a matter of if but when. Would Dick Cheney lie?

Ron

Len,

Arguing about what the Israelis were really up to in the Mexican Congress (or the Brits in Basra, for that matter) is rather pointless without further information. But the information has been suppressed. I always get suspicious, the feeling that someone is lying or hiding something, when information is suppressed. But that's just me.

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

Ron asked me:

Would Dick Cheney lie?

Never, Ron, never!

[Tim Carroll]

Given the radically changed geography of the United States since the time when the Constitution and its Bill of Rights was adopted, what has been considered "America" has been more a set of ideals than a fixed region. When those ideals are usurped, America loses its noble identity.

How can it be that conservatives, supposedly concerned with the dangers of governmental intrusion into individual lives, generally support domestic surveillance? This is nothing new to the post 9-11 world. As a reading of the recent Nixon thread shows, wiretapping and violating the privacy of Americans has long been a policy goal of right-wing Americans.

T.C.

[Tim Gratz]

Re Mark Knight's post, it must first be remembered that the Constitution itself does not specific the extent of privacy rights of individuals. The Fourth Amendment states, simply, that:

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.

What warrantless searches are reasonable have been defined by both statutes and judicial decisions. There are a whole series of judicial decisions allowing warrantless searches under a variety of circumstances. For instance, when a person is arrested, the arresting officers have the right to search his or her person without a warrant.

It should also be remembered that the fourth amendment protections were originally applicable only to the federal government and it was not until 1961 that the Supreme Court (in Mapp v Ohio) mandated that states must also follow the same rules as developed under the fourth amendment.

The Court has ruled that there is no search where law enforcement officers merely monitor what phone numbers an individual dials (although Congress has placed statutory restrictions on such monitoring).

One aspect of that law is the so-called exclusionary rule which, prophalactically, prohibits the introduction of evidence discovered through a warrantless search. The exclusionary rule is not found within the constitution. It was imposed by the Supreme Court in the 1914 case of Weeks v Arizona (and, as noted before, not applied to the states until 1961).

But the court has ruled that, for instance, the exclusionary rule does not apply in a grand jury proceeding, or in a parole revocation hearing (or in other cases).

My point is simply that the law regarding unreasonable searches and seizures has been and continues to be a developing one.

So it is very simplistic to say that "genuine patriots fought and died to guarantee the rights" that Mark contends I would throw away. Certainly from the development of the law that I set forth above it should be clear that no soldier died in either World War I or World War II to protect the right of citizens from unreasonable state searches.

Now, for what it is worth, I think the exclusionary rule of Weeks v. Arizona is "bad law" because it protects only criminals and provides no redress for innocent people subjected to warrantless searches. But I do agree that our Fourth Amendment rights should also apply to state actions.

The second amendment is certainly a good example of the importance of the interpretation of constitutional rights. Many conservatives would argue that most government regulation of firearms violate the second amendment while most liberals would take a contrary position. It would be wrong and simplistic for me to argue (assuming Mark would take the liberal position) that Mark is throwing away the rights for which our soldiers have fought and died.

I have not had time to research the whole issue of exactly what the Bush administration did and whether its actions were contrary to either the Constitution or statutory law. It should be noted that presidents have routinely suspended laws in time of war. It is well known for instance that Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus in the civil war.

IMO I do not think the constitution would be violated if Congress authorized a law allowing the monitoring of every telephone call and every internet message. I think most Americans would see that as a reasonable trade-off to protect our nation from, for instance, a terrorist nuclear attack. But I believe Mark is wrong in arguing that every "right" is of equal status. Althouigh I would be willing to presume my phone calls would be monitored, I would not like the government to invade my home without first obtaining a judicially sanctioned warrant.

Let me put it as simply as this: I think most Americans are more concerned about being assured that when they board a plane for a holiday vacation the chances are quite good that they will not be blown to bits than they are concerned about whether the Bush administration is listening when they call Aunt Harriet and Uncle Joe to wish them a happy holiday season. Do you think I am wrong in this assessment of a balance between liberty and security in a time of war?

Edited January 3, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Carroll]

Re Mark Knight's post, it must first be remembered that the Constitution itself does not specific the extent of privacy rights of individuals. The Fourth Amendment states, simply, that:

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.

What warrantless searches are reasonable have been defined by both statutes and judicial decisions. There are a whole series of judicial decisions allowing warrantless searches under a variety of circumstances. For instance, when a person is arrested, the arresting officers have the right to search his or her person without a warrant....My point is simply that the law regarding unreasonable searches and seizures has been and continues to be a developing one.

This is an inherently illogical argument. The Fourth Amendment cited herein demonstrates what most reasonable people would construe as a right to privacy. The Amendment makes clear that the only exception to the requirement of a warrant is "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation," yet Tim Gratz argues probable cause as just one of many examples that demonstrate the lack of requirement of a warrant. He is correct that the Fourth Amendment's lack of a directly stated right to privacy has led to a developmental process which has now come to include a right to privacy. But these constitutional originalists who claim that these developments, both judicial and legislative, stray from the Framers' intent could also logically claim that slavery isn't illegal. Actually, I don't consider said position to be that from their Neo Conservative agenda, which is actually Neo Confederate.

So it is very simplistic to say that "genuine patriots fought and died to guarantee the rights" that Mark contends I would throw away. Certainly from the development of the law that I set forth above it should be clear that no soldier died in either World War I or World War II to protect the right of citizens from unreasonable state searches.

A state which can engage in "unreasonable state searches" is generally considered fascistic. This certainly applied to the struggles of WWI and II. I happen to consider that Anne Frank's lack of the simple right to be secure while hiding in her own attic to be pertinent to the purposes for fighting the world wars.

Let me put it as simply as this: I think most Americans are more concerned about being assured that when they board a plane for a holiday vacation the chances are quite good that they will not be blown to bits than they are concerned about whether the Bush administration is listening when they call Aunt Harriet and Uncle Joe to wish them a happy holiday season. Do you think I am wrong in this assessment of a balance between liberty and security in a time of war?

Who cares about "most Americans?" Has Tim Gratz forgotten that this isn't a representative democracy; it is a democratic republic. What is the ratio of my representation in the U.S. Senate as a resident of California in comparison with a resident of Wyoming? Has he forgotten Thomas Jefferson's warnings about the "Tyranny of the Majority?" That most people might desire security over civil liberties has no bearing on the moral imperatives of America being America. The Framers arranged it that way.

And that final comment about "a time of war" is something else again. If we are going to have special security protocols for times of war, then the existence of that war should also conform with constitutional requirements. A declaration of war by the Congress is not the same thing as voting for interim authority based upon the 1973 War Powers Act. If the administration wants full wartime privileges, it is required to obtain a full declaration of war - something that hasn't been done since December 8, 1941. And beyond the idealistic argument, what is the practical justification to skirt the FISA procedures?

Finally, while Tim Gratz acknowledged the developmental aspect of the right to privacy, his litany deliberately (I assume) omitted Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), which found: "Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations."

In other words, putting the various protections in the Bill of Rights together does establish a right to privacy. Griswold was a birth control issue pertaining to privacy in marital relations, but as Tim Gratz well knows, this right has continued to develop since 1965, and was instrumental in the dreaded 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade.

T.C.

[Tim Gratz]

Tim wrote:

Who cares about "most Americans?"

I assume Tim has forgotten that very famous quote that "the Supreme Court reads the election returns".

And perhaps Tim has not read the actual Supreme court cases regarding what constitutes a proper warrantless search. Those cases often are decided on whether the Supreme Court believes the individual objecting to the introduction of evidence obtained in a warrantless search had a reasonable expectation of privacy. For instance, the Supreme Court has authorized warrantless searches of garbage on the ground that citizens do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning what they throw away. (The favorite Supreme Court decision of a. j. weberman and the manufacturers of paper shredders.)

Tim wrote:

A state which can engage in "unreasonable state searches" is considered fascistic.

Here Tim misread my post. I demonstrated that until 1961 there was no constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches that applied to state governments (e.g. California and its political subdivisions); I was not using "state" in the generic sense of the national sovereign. My point was simply that the application of the Fourth Amendment to the states is a rather recent development, but it is a development that I applaud. I made that clear.

I also made clear that I would not approve of warrantless searches of a person's home (so Anne Frank would be safe in my America.)

As I understand (without researching it) what the Bush administration did was allow the intervention of phone calls that were international and with respect to one of the parties there were reasonable grounds to believe to believe the party was connected to a terrorist organization or network. Well, I for one do not feel my liberties are threatened by those warrantless seizures (which do not constitute domestic surveillance). I do not routinely make international calls to terrorists. And I do not think that anyone can reasonably interpret the interception of such calls as a first step toward fascism. To those who make such an argument, perhaps the best response is: get real!

Edited January 3, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Carroll]

Tim wrote: Who cares about "most Americans?" I assume Tim has forgotten that very famous quote that "the Supreme Court reads the election returns".

This particular quote is particularly irritating given the 2000 election, in which for the only time in its history, the Supreme Court confessed that its intervention had so little legal basis that it should not be applied as precedent in any future case. To do so, to apply equal protection in election methodology, would cripple America's ability to hold elections at all.

And perhaps Tim has not read the actual Supreme court cases regatding what constitutes a proper warrantless search. Those cases often are decided on whether the Supreme Court believes the individual objecting to the introduction of evidence obtained in a warrantless search had a reasonable expectation of privacy. For instance, the Supreme Court has authorized warrantless searches of garbage on the ground that citizens do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning what they throw away.

This analysis is technically accurate but misleading. Even garbage is private until it's placed outside the residence.

As I understand (without researching it) what the Bush administration did was allow the intervention of phone calls that were international and with respect to one of the parties there were reasonable grounds to believe to believe the party was connected to a terrorist organization or network. Well, I for one do not feel my liberties are threatened by those warrantless seizures (which do not constitute domestic surveillance). I do not routinely make international calls to terrorists. And I do not think that anyone can reasonably interpret the interception of such calls as a first step toward fascism. To those who make such an argument, perhaps the best response is: get real!

Get real about letting Bush run hogwild with our civil liberties?!? Tim Gratz contradicts himself when he uses the term "reasonable grounds" when that is precisely what the president won't provide or explain. Procedures were in place for special anti-terrorism circumstances, procedures that may themselves be too intrusive. But to be cavalierly dismissive about the slippery slope possibilities of a hysteria-based usurpation of constitutional civil liberties during a non-declared war is not simple reality, it's being a proverbial "Good German."

Tim