By bminerly You often say, in these chats and your Q&A, that "the law ought to be changed". What I find disturbing is that you seem to have NO difficulty with the government acting illegally in ways that you WANT to be legal, even as you acknowledge that they are not. Especially when the actions you advocate are not only illegal, but intrusive on individuals' rights.
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
it's not that i have 'no difficulty' with these things.
you and i disagree on which things are intrusive.
most americans think that if the government isn't monitoring the phone calls of potential terrorists, it ought to be.
dc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By bminerly "I grant, many of these topics raise important constitutional issues. But in the big picture, these things don't matter much." This has to be the most disturbing thing you've ever written. I don't blame you from backing away from it with today's comments, but it's still out there. How will you be celebrating the founding of our country tomorrow? Perhaps you could use the Bill of Rights to ignite some firecrackers and bottle rockets.
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
there can be important constitutional issues that don't matter much in fighting terrorism. those things are not mutually exclusive.
the one thing the terrorists seem to understand is overwhelming violence. the nuances and even the substance of our court system -- i doubt those are studied much by those planning us harm.
it perhaps would not be a bad thing if north korea did launch a missile, and it did land within the continental U.S.
might remind us of the dangers we now face.
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By bminerly The Bloomberg News Service published last Friday that the NSA asked AT&T to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before September 11, 2001. If this is true, would you still support such measures without court-issued warrants?
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
if we're monitoring the conversations of ordinary americans without a warrant, i have issues with that.
if we are monitoring the calls of people who are not citizens, or have ties to dangerous groups, i don't have an issue with that. if we need changes in the law, let's make them.
if we're monitoring call volume and patterns, i don't have an issue either way.
you also saw, i trust, that usa today had backed off on part of its story.
dc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By bminerly Your column today implies that the Supreme Court ruling on the legality of military tribunals is somehow "concentrating ... on the wrong things". Apparently, the rule of law is "the wrong thing" to uphold in the face of increasingly authoritarian acts of Bush's White House. Can you explain to me why you are so ready, and apparently even eager, to throw away the law in order for Bush to keep you safe?
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
my observation on the wrong things is more of an aggregate, overall comment on the current state of affairs. yes, the court decision plays into that. but also keep in mind, perhaps there would have been a way to avoid it becoming this huge issue.
i'm not suggesting the court was somehow improper to take up the case.
i don't think the law should be thrown away. i do think we need to realize we're in a different time than 10 years ago. if we need to modify the laws, we ought to do that.
dc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------