The spirit of self-help is the root of all genuine growth in the individual.

It depends entirely on what the evidence can be used for. If a strict wall exists between the intelligence community and the domestic police, the intelligence community should be able to listen all day and night.

If they are allowed to share information, the intelligence community has to play by the same rules as the domestic police. They cannot abridge my right to privacy without a member of the judiciary signing off on it.

It was a great hypothetical. I'm hoping to see some more comments.

Actually I'm surprised that Doug and you seem to agree with me on this. I say "seem to" because I'm waiting for one or both of you to pesent the contra side ;)

As I said in my piece, the danger of giving the government too much of a free hand in doing things in secret is not a danger that should be ignored. But with respect to surveilling the enemy, I'm much more willing to give leeway. So long as any information "accidentally" gathered on American citizens that carries potential criminal liability remains inadmissible, I really don't have a problem with watching everything our enemies do.

In any case, it was a great hypo, Wulf. Thanks for laying out.

Ah, but you left out the most important detail in your hypothetical. Who controls the White House? For the Left, that makes all the difference.

Yes, the CIA should have obtain permission to listen in to your phone call. Domestic police are governed under criminal statutes while the CIA operates overseas without many of the restrictions imposed on domestic police.
In addition, the CIA makes judgments that influence policy without the review of another branch of the government.
We need the CIA in order to be abreast of developments outside our borders, but they will, by necessity, often operate in ways that we would not accept within our borders.

ErsatzG7, the more I think about it, the more I am sure that your argument,

Domestic police are governed under criminal statutes while the CIA operates overseas without many of the restrictions imposed on domestic police,

actually refutes your conclusion,

Yes, the CIA should have obtain permission to listen in to your phone call.

You would need to explain why they should have these restrictions placed upon them. Keep in mind that it is entirely within their purview to eavesdrop on Putin and other non-Americans in the name of national security. What is gained by compromising their ability to do so?

If the information received through this eavesdropping cannot be used in domestic prosecutions, what would be the basis for your concerns and objections?

Wulf - What I said, perhaps not too clearly, is that the CIA should have to get another branch of government to concur before it would be allowed to listen in on any domestic call.
I accept the fact that the CIA has two standards: one for foreigners and one for Americans. This is no different than intelligence agencies in other western democracies, but it is an infringement on my civil liberty to be spied upon by my own government unless it has good reason to believe I broke the law.
Again, the mindset in an intelligence agency is much different than that in law enforcement.
We've been down this road before. Google "Church Committee".

What I said, perhaps not too clearly, is that the CIA should have to get another branch of government to concur before it would be allowed to listen in on any domestic call.

I definitely understand your point here, but this becomes a muddier issue with modern communications. The CIA may not initially be aware of the fact that the phone call is to the United States, or whether the phone call is to a US citizen. Even if we were to assume that every agent acts in good faith, its just not possible for them to eavesdrop only on foreign targets and never on US citizens.

And even beside that, while it seems in general that it is an infringement on my civil liberty to be spied upon by my own government unless it has good reason to believe I broke the law, it is not legally necessary for the town police to have a warrant for both parties of a conversation. Are you arguing that this practice is an infringement on my civil liberty? If so, you are arguing to invalidate the entire domestic, warrant-covered wiretap process. And if not, what is the difference between the local cop and the CIA agent listening in on me without prior suspicion against me?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:

Remember This Information? YesNo

Comments: