Comments on: German Terror Plot Highlights Real Threats

By: Intelligence Director Lies To Senate » Comments From Left Field

Intelligence Director Lies To Senate » Comments From Left Field — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:16:10 +0000

[...] For instance, you can claim your product does or did something it actually didn’t do. Like, I dunno, maybe claiming your paper towels can remove paint, or, that your super secret warrantless spy program helped fail a terrorism plot in Germany. [...]

By: Kyle E. Moore

Kyle E. Moore — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:57:15 +0000

True, and when you come to that conflict, you have to ask yourself, which is more important.

By: Frank Hagan

Frank Hagan — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:11:15 +0000

In this case, German law prevails. AFAIK, it looks like German law only requires “evidence” that a crime is being committed for the police to decide, on their own, to start wiretapping.

As far as American wiretaps of non-citizens/non-residents overseas, our law allows surveillance without a warrant, but I would expect Germany to be a bit testy if they found out about it. Do we think that’s what has happened here? I suspect the German intelligence services were the point people on this; they have much more experience in dealing with terrorism than we do. We evidently shared information with them, but it looks like this was their operation.

The idea of limiting government’s surveillance has to do with limiting the power of government so your rights are not trampled. Our government is charged with protecting our rights and protecting our persons. It fails whenever either one is compromised. Sometimes the two goals are at odds, so we have rules that may seem nonsensical to other countries.

Remember, in Germany, free speech is limited: you can go to prison for political speech, as a holocaust denier recently did.

By: Kyle E. Moore

Kyle E. Moore — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:55:50 +0000

Okay, the warrant is symbolic in nature in this argument, and essentially it means that you have performed a certain task. It’s the task that is valid and that task being that you collect evidence first, and then have someone double check to make sure that you aren’t infringing upon someone’s civil liberties, right?

You don’t NEED a warrant, you need what the warrant signifies what has occurred. In the case of what Bush is doing here is he’s putting the cart before the donkey. He’s doing the wiretapping first, then going to a judge and saying, see, I already didn’t violate someones rights. The problem with that is that the safety check comes in after wrogdoing has already occurred. At that point, what are you supposed to do? Slap the President on the wrist and tell him not to do it again?

By: Frank Hagan

Frank Hagan — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:03:15 +0000

German courts are sensitive to civil rights issues, but I’m not sure you need a court’s approval to intercept conversations in Germany (see http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/28/news/germany.php for a recent case where a German state’s wiretap law was struck down). It looks like all the police have to do is show that there is evidence of a crime being committed to intercept voice, data and email communications. I’m not sure what level of evidence is needed in Germany.

America may be alone in requiring a court order to conduct wiretapping; I don’t know for certain, but our civil rights here are stronger than in many other countries.

By: Germans Arrest Terrorists

Germans Arrest Terrorists — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:55:26 +0000

[...] Comments From Left Field discusses warrantless wiretaps, and the clues in the story that the German authorities worked with US authorities, while Public Secrets makes the same point I do above, that Western intelligence sources seem to be doing a better job of disrupting these plots. [...]

By: Germany: Plot targeted U.S. facilities | Detroit Populist Times

Germany: Plot targeted U.S. facilities | Detroit Populist Times — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:58:09 +0000

[...] has been exposed and thwarted. As my fellow blogger Michael Tedesco from Comments from left field said: Any way you cut it it is a success and it certainly should serve as a reminder that there is more [...]

By: Kyle E. Moore

Kyle E. Moore — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:37:37 +0000

Um… yeah… Scott.

that’s kind of the point.

I’m down with the wiretapping. You do the gruntwork, get your ducks in a row, and are able to convince a judge that the target warrants wiretapping, then by all means, tap-tap-tap away.

It’s the whole, we’ll tap whomever we want and we’ll kinda just let the judge know about it after it’s done that we throw the bullshit flag at.

And there was a whole other point to the post, at least that’s what I got, and it had something to do with Iraq.

By: Michael Tedesco

Michael Tedesco — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:26:49 +0000

Of course the Spiegel article does not say there was “warrantless wiretapping” involved, only wiretapping. Wiretaps have long been a tool of law enforcement and are typically procured with a warrant. How does this make my point moot?

By: Michael Tedesco

Michael Tedesco — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:25:13 +0000

My entire point was that it was a success regardless and that we need to quit sniping as there is indeed a REAL terror threat. But thank you for the clarification Scott.

By: scott

scott — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:19:34 +0000

The police did in fact intercept numerous phone calls between the men and contacts in Pakistan so wiretapping was used. That kind of makes your entire point moot, doesn’t it?

This from Spiegel:

“Daniel S. visited a terrorist training camp in Pakistan in March 2006. According to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE, the other two were likewise in Pakistan at the end of 2006 and it is thought that they too spent some time in a training camp. Since then, investigators have intercepted numerous phone calls between the suspects and contacts in Pakistan.”

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,504037,00.html