Learn from the mistakes of others

PAPER CHASE NEWSBURST

ABA head warns against 'taking shortcuts' with Constitution
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Greg Sampson at 10:34 AM ET

[JURIST] American Bar Association president Michael S. Greco said Friday that American civil liberties were under stress in a time of conflict, but that policymakers should resist the temptation to "take shortcuts with the Constitution." He made his comments as the ABA released a poll showing that 52 percent of Americans believe the President could not suspend constitutional liberties in the fight against terrorism, and that an additional 25 percent believe the President must seek either congressional or court authorization before engaging in domestic surveillance.

The poll was commissioned by a special ABA task force set up to investigate the domestic surveillance initiative. Its preliminary report will be submitted to the ABA House of Delegates during the organization's midyear meeting in Chicago on February 13, where delegates will vote on whether or not to

• Callon the President to abide by our constitutional system of checks and balances and respect the roles of Congress and the judiciary in protecting national security consistent with the Constitution
  
• Oppose any further electronic surveillance in US for foreign intelligence purposes that does not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and urge the President, if he believes FISA is inadequate, to seek amendment or new legislation
  
• Urge Congress to affirm that the Authorization for Use of Military Force adopted by Congress in September 2001 did not provide an exception to FISA, saying such an exception must be explicit
  
• Urge Congress to conduct a comprehensive, thorough investigation of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program
  
• Urge Congress to assure proceedings of that investigation are open to public
  
• Urge Congress to review and make recommendations regarding intelligence oversight process

The Baltimore Sun has more.

the questions posed by the behaviour of the usa executive go beyond "are they constitutional".

with an ephemeral 'enemy', an indeterminate timeline, and the inadequacy of the kinds of military and quasi-military operations the usa is used to conducting. not even the "cold war" (perhaps especially the cold war) did not prepare them for this kind of thing.

the potential for incremental erosion of social and political conditions under the guise of "war measures" will only grow over time. particularly as previous measures prove inadequate, or are perceived - and portrayed - to be inadequate.

orwell (and others) warned us to be vigilant amongst ourselves; that paranoia is infectious and has the potential to escalate as it ripples through populations. if we start to accept that suspecting people is ok, that it's enough, that suspicion alone gives us enough cause to throw away our own laws, our own values ... we begin to think it's ok to segregate, to persecute, to abuse. there are plenty of people who have some idea what that's like ...

when our governments treat oversight processes with contempt or as nuisances, the opportunities for abuses and mistakes escalate. several hundred years of history on both sides of the atlantic are for naught if we insist on telling ourselves that we live in unprecedented times. the how may look different, but that's a distraction. guerilla warfare, terrorism, asymmetric warfare ... call it what you will, but it's not new for small forces to take on larger ones. for occupied people to resist. or for others to take advantage of the situation. just ask the bloody romans.

i may not be a history major, but i can read. it's not so hard.