The natives of the Right are whoopin' it up tonight over the news that the Canadians nabbed an alleged terrorist cell by monitoring their internet activity.
Naturally, rightie tribespersons are only marginally interested in the apprehension of possibly dangerous people. What they're really excited about is proof that electronic surveillance can catch terrorists, which of course means that liberals are wrong about everything they've said and believed since the Truman Administration. Whoo-HOO!
Over at Protein Wisdom, Jeff Goldstein wrote,
Although to be sure, lots of buildings and public transit venues in a number of countries remain intact as a result—and thousands of innocent civilians were probably spared. Still, small consolation indeed if it turns out some “spy agency” somewhere plucked a conversation out of (cyber)space and used it to zero in on these guys.
Keep an eye on Glenn Greenwald’s site for updates and analysis on how, during these overlapping probes, the Constitution was shredded.
Since Glenn's busy and I have posting privileges here, I want to help out. So: drawing on my near-average understanding of constitutional principles, I am reasonably certain that the U.S. Constitution was not violated, because it has no jurisdiction in Canada. Unfortunately I know next to nothing about the Canadian constitution. Perhaps a Canadian reader can help with that.
Mr. Goldstein also complained that very few leftie blogs have weighed in. "Maybe they’re all at church," he wrote. Judging from the reaction to my last post here, I doubt that, Jeff.
I regret to say this, because I know Mr. Goldstein is looking to us lefties for direction and guidance on this matter. But so far I haven't learned enough from news stories about the circumstances of the investigation and arrests to know if any civil liberties issues were involved. I hope sometime in the next few hours we'll learn more details, and that Anonymous Liberal or Hume's Ghost can drop by and enlighten us.
Captain Ed decided not to wait for commentary from liberals. Instead, he anticipated what he thought liberals would say so he could go ahead and write his counter argument:
The issue of Internet monitoring has some in the US uncomfortable about breaches of privacy. However, the terrorists use that as a decentralized communication method, and a willful refusal to investigate these communications is sheer folly, as this raid attests. Should the Canadians have eschewed their investigation -- and waited until this group killed hundreds or thousands of people before knowing anything about them? The Internet is not a private network, as some could argue the phone systems provide. Communications are not point-to-point but broadcast, and the expectation of privacy in Internet communications should have disappeared long ago.Here are my questions: How many times do we have to say we are not against surveillance as long as it's done lawfully before it sinks into a rightie brain? And are there numbers that go that high? And does it not seem to you that all conservative rhetoric these days is just one big mother fatass straw man?
If we want to catch these people before they strike, then we had better know when, where, and how they communicate for coordination and recruitment, and be prepared to stop them as the CSIS has apparently done today.
My buddy blogger Steve M writes to Captain Ed,
Er, Ed? I don't know anyone who's arguing that governments shouldn't be monitoring suspect Web sites. It's the unrestricted warrantless dragnets that get us cranky, not cops finding their way to chat rooms where people are talking jihad and making their way in.That's clear enough, isn't it? How can people who are bright enough (I assume) to tie their own shoes read that and interpret it to mean "We must eschew all surveillance"?
Steve M. also links to a New Yorker article about New York City counterterrorism measures that seems very similar to what the CSIS has been doing -- monitoring jihadist Web sites and chat rooms.
More questions: Is the New York City intelligence operation described in the New Yorker going to suffer because of the recent cut in counterterrorism funds? In the next few hours, how many rightie bloggers will declare that the CSIS web site monitoring program is not substantially different from what the NSA is up to, even though we don't know what the bleep the NSA is up to? And can Jeff Goldstein, in fact, tie his own shoes?
i can't believe you revealed in your post that officials are monitoring jihadist wesites and chatrooms. Now that the terrorists know we're watching they'll stop using chat rooms.
ReplyDeleteheads will roll for this!
I suppose I'm a "lefty blogger" or something close enough to it that my post counts as a response. I'll cross post it here:
ReplyDeleteWhy can't the U.S. be more like Canada?
*They actually found the materials for three Oklahoma City-sized bombs before they went off (cf. 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing in this country).
*The police actually had evidence that these people were involved in wrongdoing and presented it publicly (cf. most of the people the U.S. has detained in recent years. José Padilla is probably the best comparison)
*They actually charged the people involved with it and will no doubt give them trials without evidence obtained by torture (cf. U.S. "Black Sites" around the world)
*Canada's police are still called "Mounties." How sweet is that?
Incidentally, Aly Hindy, an imam that knew some of them, said "these days when a Muslim commits fraud, it becomes terrorism. When he commits stealing it becomes terrorism." We'll see if that's true in Canada (it may not be), but we know it's true in the U.S.
I'm still waiting for defenders of the NSA program to answer Matt Welch's questions.
ReplyDeleteBut so far I haven't learned enough from news stories about the circumstances of the investigation and arrests to know if any civil liberties issues were involved.
ReplyDeleteNo. Unlike Bush, we Canadians do it the legal way.
Besides that, it's beginning to look like these suckers were nabbed in a sting operation after they ordered the fertilizer from the US and that the monitoring of their internet activity had relatively little to do with it.
Cap'n Ed sez:
ReplyDeleteThe Internet is not a private network, as some could argue the phone systems provide. Communications are not point-to-point but broadcast, and the expectation of privacy in Internet communications should have disappeared long ago.
Generally not true. Some of the "push" protocols are in fact "broadcast", but most TCP communication is at base point-to-point. It's designed that way; that's what "sockets" are all about: Not only point-to-point machine to machine, but also point-to-point process (or user) on that machine to the same on another.
And without looking at content, there's no obvious way from distinguishing, say, web lookups from TCP login sessions (you can use the TCP port number, but those are recommendations and not enforced as to use).
IOW, Cap'n Ed is just not accurate here.
Cheers,
"That's clear enough, isn't it? How can people who are bright enough (I assume) to tie their own shoes read that and interpret it to mean "We must eschew all surveillance"?"
ReplyDeleteAh! There you have reached the crux of the matter. Never "assume" and especially never assume that someone else is bright enough to tie their own shoes. I have it on good authority that.......
In order to try and stay somewhat anonymous and "Safe" from rebuke, I've chosen to comment "anonymously" I imagine Glenn could find out where I posted this from...
ReplyDeleteA couple weeks ago I was following up a story about a Canadian Soldiers Funeral, (this was one of the soldiers who's return had been verbotten by the Canadian Government, if you remember) this particular story had stirred up a an odd posting on an Iranian discussion forum, calling for the death of All Canadian Soldiers in like fashion.
The distressing part of this call was it was one of THOUSANDS of posts from the same person, hundreds just that day. All in the same angry, vitrollic candor: Death to the West.
This poster, however, had left tell-tale fingerprints on their posts, and they posted from the same place all the time. Now, they confined their posts to only a select few locations and it took more than a few bumps around the net to dig up more of this persons "work".
Long story short, I gathered up all I had read, all the notes I had about this Person (or Persons) identity and location and contact CSIS [The Canadian Intelligence Agency] This was me by incredulity at the "Local Office" I contacted, but with tact adn professionalism by the computer crimes investigators who I eventually was placed in contact with. I was never contacted again, I hope this means that what I gave them was either harmless or led to this very arrest.
I'm choosing to be guarded as I am not sure if these people are the ones arrested, or if I might have outed myself to a very real Terrorist group.
I was most surprised that anyone in Canada, especially someone of foreign birth, like myself, could hate Canada so much. It was shocking.
Have a good one, I hope the RCMP caught them all, or at least stopped them.
What's with all the injun allusions at the beginning of this article? You know--natives, whoopin' it up, tribespeople.
ReplyDeleteNot to say I'm offended exactly, but I do find it an odd characterization of the right for a supposed liberal to be making. What's next? Circling the wagons to ward off the savage redskins?
So I guess if I don't order my THREE TONS of fertilizer over the net I can avoid the scrutiny of our ever watchful protectors, eh?
ReplyDeleteAll I've read in the news accounts was monitoring of sites when alerted to violent rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteNow let's imagine that occurring here. The FBI or NSA would take what they found to a judge and ask for warrants to monitor their email, snailmail, cellphone communications and their live physical contacts. The judge woulld grant that. Evidence collection would ensue.
They wouldn't bust them, because they want to trap as wide a group of potentially violent terrorists as possible before moving in. Along the way, more warrants are needed and granted, to monitor the online and offline contacts.
Once the move was made to obtain serious bomb material, which would also trigger an alert because of protections put in place after the Oklahoma City bombing, there was clear physical evidence to match to the rhetoric, to create a more easily prosecutable case. As well, with the fertilizer in the possession of the group, an imminent danger existed that had to be prevented, so the law moved in.
All could be achieved within the boundaries of existing law. And as Barbara noted, liberals don't object to surveillance and investigation for perfectly good reasons, if within the confines of all governing laws.
Spy on the communications of American citizens? Sure, if there's enough suspicious activity to convince a judge, who then provides the legal authority to do so.
And... there are lots of Muslims and non-Muslims in this country angered by events in Iraq. None, to date, that we're aware of, have responded with attempts to amass bomb materials and talk about where they plan to use the bombs.
It may be true that our war in Iraq provides added motivation to people with violent tendencies to turn to violence. But the ones choosing violence are the guilty parties. Our political leaders may be guilty of pouring gasoline onto existing fire, but that doesn't make them accomplices. It just makes them stupid.
Distinctions like these are completely overlooked by people like Ed who are too willing to surrender our freedoms because they're scared.
Neither the legal ways we seek nor the illegal ones they accept will provide a foolproof shield from terrorists. Guarantees of perfect safety are impossible. So why surrender the things of value we possess already - our freedoms - to gain something that can never exist at all?
How can people who are bright enough (I assume) to tie their own shoes read that and interpret it to mean "We must eschew all surveillance"?
ReplyDeleteBad assummption.
Quite seriously, people like Goldstein and the right-wing bloggers aren't interested in the niceties of debate, like actually giving a shit about what the other guy is saying. It's just a chest-thumping game for them.
"these days when a Muslim commits fraud, it becomes terrorism. When he commits stealing it becomes terrorism."
ReplyDeleteAnd when a Muslim gives religious counseling, he may be committing terrorism. Read the article titled
The Education of Ali al-Timini
in the June issue of The Atlantic Magazine.
It seems that Mr. Al-Timini, who was a computational biologist doing cancer research and working on a PhD, was also a Muslim scholar. As such he often counseled others on Muslim religious matters.
Several young men, based on some generic advice he gave, decided to go to Afghanistan for violent jihad training. After their training, their ardor for violent jihad cooled and they returned home to resume their normal lives. No terrorist plot was ever formed; no people were hurt.
Mr. al-Timini received a mandatory life sentence in prison for being the "master-mind" of a terrorist cell.
If the facts are as presented in The Atlantic article, it's a pretty shocking miscarriage of justice.
If anyone knows anything about this case that offers evidence the other way, I'd love to hear about it.
What's with all the injun allusions at the beginning of this article? You know--natives, whoopin' it up, tribespeople.
ReplyDeleteNative tribespersons of all races and continents are known to engage in vocalizations, victory dances and other celebratory behaviors after the conquest of an enemy. I might have been writing about British soccer fans, for example.
Like Barbara, I know next to nothing about the Canadian constitution or their legal system, so I don’t know if any laws were broken or if any civil liberties were violated.
ReplyDeleteBut don’t the righties Barbara quotes assume that Canadians don’t have any civil liberties – and that’s a good thing?
Aren’t they assuming that the Canadian government has the power to monitor all internet activity, e-mails, phone-calls, mail, without any sort of legal oversight and accountability – and that there are no laws to prevent this, and that Canadians are fine with not having any privacy – and Americans should be too. Isn’t that what their really saying here?
Are Canadian politicians okay with their political opponents who are in power having access to all of their e-mails and phone calls, and why don’t they think that’s an unfair advantage for those out of power? Just how does that work, and how is that compatible with a healthy democracy?
I eagerly await answers from those who know a bit more about the circumstances of this case and the applicable law.
If Canadians totally lack any privacy from their government, and they’re fine with a lawless “Big Brother” watching everything they do and say, then that’s news to me.
Even if that were true, “Guilty until proven innocent” is still not what U.S. law has been based upon, and that still does not justify or excuse the violation of U.S. laws by the Bush administration.
Better Straw Men, please.
I
But what will get the Right really exercised is confirmation of the deeply (deeply) held conviction that Canada works as a theme park for terrorists. Many commentators on the right *still* believe that somewhere, somehow, 9/11 can still be traced to our borders. We hear that all the time.
ReplyDeleteYou are probably right, but don't feel put out. Righties hate just about everybody.
BTW, I never say anything bad about Canadians. I figure some day I might need to seek asylum.
I know the righties are all agog about this Canadian story. But I am very quesy about this whole story & its associated circunstances. Now I am not saying there is nothing to this. I will like to see more info. But does anyone remember the hoopla about the New York Jewish jeweller and a couple of supposed Islamic terrorists in cohots that made such a spectacular splash in the news a few years back. What ever happened to that story I wonder. I know this may be undue scepticism on my part. But we live in an age were that may be the pruident position to be.
ReplyDeleteThe Charter of Rights and Freedoms (as the Canadians call their constitution), is pretty explicit in defining the rights to privacy. Check it out.
ReplyDeleteJeff Goldstein's confusion is understandable; isn't Canada just another northern state?
A bit off topic, but not really.....
ReplyDeleteCharlie Savage has an article in today’s Boston Globe about the ABA.
The board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority in reserving the right to ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office.
Apparently, Charlie’s excellent reporting has led directly to this investigation.
tenor:
ReplyDeleteThanks. Do you have a guest room?
Of course, this happened in Canada, so clearly no violations of the U.S. Constitution were involved! Our Constitution remains inviolate, even though it's just a goddamn piece of paper! But just think what we could do if only we had the flexibility that Canadian authorities have! Wow!
ReplyDeleteWhile you lefties keep putting your feet in your mouth, you ought to know that Canada did enact bill C36, the Ant-Terrorism Act in December, 2001 that includes many similar powers as the Patriot Act, and has passed further bills that renew and add more powers (C22, C35, C42). It is also possible to hold people without charge indefinitely with the use of Security Certificates, where evidence must be shown only to the judge approving them and can not be examined by a suspect's lawyer. Canadian civil liberties are not as secure as you might think.
ReplyDeleteMilitary-enforced, corporate-funded, political-tyranny creates insurgency. It creates it in Iraq, it creates it in South America, it creates it in Canada, and it can create it right here in America.
ReplyDeleteThe patriots of our revolution were the terrorists of their day, destroying property and lives because they felt there was no other recourse for their grievences. I am already wondering how much more grief I can take, and how much more of the Constitution must be lost before I will become an insurgent.
"Naturally, rightie tribespersons are only marginally interested in the apprehension of possibly dangerous people."
ReplyDeleteWrong, moonbat.
The Ugly American said...
ReplyDelete"I think what people on the right and for that matter people with any common sense are appreciative of, (I don't think happy is the right word) is that 17 people who want to kill you, me, and everyone we know were caught before their plans to kill our loved ones came to fruition."
And how do you know it wasn't Canadians they wanted to kill? They were after all in Canada, not the U.S. Not to mention the difficulty of crossing the border with 6000 ponds of the stuff mixed with ?# of pounds of other materials. It's not like it's going to go into your carry on luggage on the plane or fit in the trunk of your car.
I'm a righty tribesman (thanks for the PC tribesperson, but not necessary). I'm simply glad that the Canadians were able to thwart this terrorist plot, sorry no whoop'n it up going on. By the way, surprised someone as highly evolved as yourself would use the word "native" in a less than eulogistic way. You guys on the left are a hoot and a half! Keep it up, we need the comic relief.
ReplyDeleteHume's Ghost said...
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for defenders of the NSA program to answer Matt Welch's questions.The Pro-war Libertarian Quiz...
The question is a bit open-ended, so here are 10 yes/no hypotheticals. My answer to every one is "no":
1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?
This question as it is worded cannot be answered yes or no.
If the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign group and the purpose is intelligence gathering, the courts have universally held yes.
Otherwise, the answer is likely to be no.
2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell?
No.
3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?
No.
4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason?
Yes.
Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?
No.
5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?
Yes, if the person is an illegal combatant or a member of an foreign group at war with the US.
6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?
Of course. Why would they not?
7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?
This has no yes or no answer either.
Under property seizure rules, the examination is whether the property, not the owner, is involved in criminal activity.
8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?
No. The Posse Comitatus (sp?) statute addresses this. This is why federal troops were not sent in to LA perform law enforcement after Katrina.
9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?
No. There is nothing unconstitutional about such a card, but it is a bad idea.
10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?
You can't answer this without knowing the activities.
Zack said...
ReplyDeleteThe board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority in reserving the right to ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office.
:::snicker:::
How can Mr. Bush be exceeding his constitutional authority by writing a statement of his personal opinion as to the constitutionality of a statute? Any American can do this.
This is why I never joined the ABA. It has become a politicized joke.
According to preliminary reports (for example - see here ), CSIS and later on the RCMP only paid close attention to radical islamic websites. That is how they identified first some of the alleged members of this group, through their postings on some of these sites. Then the RCMP used the proper legal/constitutional ways to further their investigation.
ReplyDeleteHence, once again, the right-wing nutties are getting excited for nothing and using factless (or wrongly understood) events to support their ideologies.
I hope we Canadians never surrender any of our rights because of fear. So far, it appears that we are remaining steadfast in refusing to do so. hence, I remain optimistic.
(The Mentarch Blog)
Not to worry so much about Mr Goldstein. He gets most everything caustically wrong but his spelling. He grades papers for a living.
ReplyDeleteDistinctions like these are completely overlooked by people like Ed who are too willing to surrender our freedoms because they're scared.
ReplyDeleteand...
It's not, of course. As with most of the modern Right, the true subject is hating liberals. You're clarifying and focussing as if they actually cared about something else. They don't.
Both of these were from upthread. I'd like to dispute the first and expand on the second...
I don't think any of this bluster from those on the right has anything to do with fear, or the fact that they are so frightened they are willing to sacrifice freedoms.
It is based, in my opinion, on pure partisanship and nothing more or less. Because it is Bush and the Republicans pushing this shit, they are behind it 110%. No questions asked, or even permissable. If Al Gore were President, I am confidant they would be 180 degrees on the other side of the issue.
The fact that they get to puffi up their President and also get to slam those on the left just fuels the rhetoric to the next level.
Um, "puffi" is a typo. A silly-enough looking one that I thought I ought to point it out.
ReplyDeletePuff.
The defence lawyers and media up here have already started talking about whether they can get a fair trial because of the media attention. I tend to think they can; not much gets leaked to the media up here. Of course that may change now that we are under Conservative wacko rule.
ReplyDeleteMost of the people I have talked to here are interested but not too concerned about a 911 like event possibly happening. Local mosques have been vandalized but that was bound to happen.
Since it is almost always a slow news day in Canada, interest will remain high for awhile.