Thursday, December 15, 2005
The basics of the NYTimes' 12/15 story on domestic eavesdropping
By now you may have heard of the story that the New York Times was asked to withhold. The paper did so for a while, but now they've come forward with (part of) the news: the president authorized monitoring phone conversations for as many as 500 people -- without a warrant to do so.
The Times' story is long, and even I didn't read the entire thing. You can, if you like.
These two paragraphs get the brunt of it. The "agency" referred to is the National Security Agency, or NSA (a Department of Defense org tasked with monitoring US and foreign airwaves for intelligence):
"Since 2002, the agency has been conducting some warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States who are linked, even if indirectly, to suspected terrorists through the chain of phone numbers and e-mail addresses, according to several officials who know of the operation. Under the special program, the agency monitors their international communications, the officials said. The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan.
Warrants are still required for eavesdropping on entirely domestic-to-domestic communications, those officials say, meaning that calls from that New Yorker to someone in California could not be monitored without first going to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court."
The Times' story is long, and even I didn't read the entire thing. You can, if you like.
These two paragraphs get the brunt of it. The "agency" referred to is the National Security Agency, or NSA (a Department of Defense org tasked with monitoring US and foreign airwaves for intelligence):
"Since 2002, the agency has been conducting some warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States who are linked, even if indirectly, to suspected terrorists through the chain of phone numbers and e-mail addresses, according to several officials who know of the operation. Under the special program, the agency monitors their international communications, the officials said. The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan.
Warrants are still required for eavesdropping on entirely domestic-to-domestic communications, those officials say, meaning that calls from that New Yorker to someone in California could not be monitored without first going to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court."
Monday, December 12, 2005
"Naive me": A perspective on Tookie Williams' execution
From: David
To: Saqib
When: December 12, 2005, 7:30 p.m.
I really thought that there was a possibility Arnie would take advantage of this opportunity. Of course, I was wrong. I thought Arnie might even use it as an opportunity not only to grant clemency, but to issue a moratorium on the death penalty in California. That, of course, was never a possibility, I suppose.
There is little discussion in the media about Williams' claim to innocence. And the fact that he hasn't "atoned" or apologized for his crimes was used by Arnie and death penalty advocates as a reason not to grant him clemency. What about the possibility that he didn't atone because, well, he's innocent. It's not so far-fetched. Juries are not infallible, and more to the point, they're not required to be certain of a defendant's guilt. Even they must admit there's a possibility of innocence (even if it is unreasonable doubt).
I must admit, I am now anti-death penalty. For two reasons. My first is still the possibility of error-- irreversible in the case of the death penalty. There is literally no way to PROVE guilt (evidence is not proof), at least not in our system. DNA isn't 100%, and labs make mistakes. The only way 12 jurors could be sure would be if they saw it with their own eyes. But even then we'd all have to take their word for it (a person that saw the crime wouldn't be allowed on the jury, of course). Any possibility of killing an innocent man is too great.
The other is for moral reasons. It seems absurb to me that the state, in a civilized nation, could use its power to end a life, of one of its own citizens no less, especially given the potential for error. I will also admit that Aaron's work had something to do with this. Aaron, your stories of prisoners who have souls, who have changed, who have friends and hopes and gentle sides, who are afraid of talking to pretty lawyers/interns helped humanize even the ugliest souls. Clearly, Tookie Williams has reformed to some degree. The man would RATHER spend the rest of his life in prison (I can't say that I'd prefer prison for life over death), probably so he can continue to influence people's lives in POSITIVE ways. It is narrow-minded of us to believe that a man would be so overwhelmingly evil as to deserve death (or any other cruel punishment).
There are other reasons to oppose the death penalty. Its disproportionate effect on minorities, and the unfairness of that. The other lives it destroys, like family members of the felon. The practical reasons, like the cost, the fact that it's not a deterrent. Lastly, we're simply outdated. All other civilized nations have gotten rid of the death penalty. As Aaron pointed out the other day, some even have systems that do not include life imprisonment, assuming that people will change over the years. Our system was supposed to be about reform. And now when someone has actually reformed (which is hard to do in prison), it doesn't end up mattering.
Thanks for letting me vent.
David
To: Saqib
When: December 12, 2005, 7:30 p.m.
I really thought that there was a possibility Arnie would take advantage of this opportunity. Of course, I was wrong. I thought Arnie might even use it as an opportunity not only to grant clemency, but to issue a moratorium on the death penalty in California. That, of course, was never a possibility, I suppose.
There is little discussion in the media about Williams' claim to innocence. And the fact that he hasn't "atoned" or apologized for his crimes was used by Arnie and death penalty advocates as a reason not to grant him clemency. What about the possibility that he didn't atone because, well, he's innocent. It's not so far-fetched. Juries are not infallible, and more to the point, they're not required to be certain of a defendant's guilt. Even they must admit there's a possibility of innocence (even if it is unreasonable doubt).
I must admit, I am now anti-death penalty. For two reasons. My first is still the possibility of error-- irreversible in the case of the death penalty. There is literally no way to PROVE guilt (evidence is not proof), at least not in our system. DNA isn't 100%, and labs make mistakes. The only way 12 jurors could be sure would be if they saw it with their own eyes. But even then we'd all have to take their word for it (a person that saw the crime wouldn't be allowed on the jury, of course). Any possibility of killing an innocent man is too great.
The other is for moral reasons. It seems absurb to me that the state, in a civilized nation, could use its power to end a life, of one of its own citizens no less, especially given the potential for error. I will also admit that Aaron's work had something to do with this. Aaron, your stories of prisoners who have souls, who have changed, who have friends and hopes and gentle sides, who are afraid of talking to pretty lawyers/interns helped humanize even the ugliest souls. Clearly, Tookie Williams has reformed to some degree. The man would RATHER spend the rest of his life in prison (I can't say that I'd prefer prison for life over death), probably so he can continue to influence people's lives in POSITIVE ways. It is narrow-minded of us to believe that a man would be so overwhelmingly evil as to deserve death (or any other cruel punishment).
There are other reasons to oppose the death penalty. Its disproportionate effect on minorities, and the unfairness of that. The other lives it destroys, like family members of the felon. The practical reasons, like the cost, the fact that it's not a deterrent. Lastly, we're simply outdated. All other civilized nations have gotten rid of the death penalty. As Aaron pointed out the other day, some even have systems that do not include life imprisonment, assuming that people will change over the years. Our system was supposed to be about reform. And now when someone has actually reformed (which is hard to do in prison), it doesn't end up mattering.
Thanks for letting me vent.
David
