« Posted without comment | Daddy-O's Blog | Fifty days left... »

Do they allow warrantless wiretapping in India?



I would have to guess they most certainly do. America is the only country with genuine Fourth Amendment protections that put teeth to the law that a suspect cannot become a suspect without a judge or independent authority not beholden to the enforcement bureau.

In other words: Those Mumbai terrorists planned and executed their terror attacks completely below the technological radar. The security forces in India obviously did not see this coming. With every tool at hand in a security force's disposal, with as heightened a sense of threat level that India is under every single day, somehow these terrorists managed to pull this off without a hint of warning. They were successful, and yet I have been told by my government for the last seven years that the reason we've not been attacked is because I've given up my civil liberties, in order to help the government protect me.

This is exactly the kind of terror attack that could happen anywhere, including here. Planned without computers or cell phones or email. A small but well-coordinated team of dedicated terrorists cannot be stopped, except by pure luck.

I'm not willing to give up my rights to NOT be wiretapped. I am an innocent citizen. The government has no right to come into my home without my knowledge and empty out the contents of my computer, yet that's exactly what the FBI is empowered to do by the Patriot Act.

Suspending civil rights NEVER PROTECTS ANYBODY. Never. Any neocon who tells you otherwise--reassuring us all that we have nothing to fear, as long as we haven't done anything--is lying to your face.

10 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

It is likely that real intent of the surveillance engaged in by the Bush administration was primarily intended to protect their own political power.

This was done by monitoring political opponents, war/convention protesters, peace groups, UN Security Council members, the British UN ambassador, or whatever person or group about whom they felt it necessary to get information. This ties in with their use of the DOJ for political purposes, with Bush/Cheney/Rove, the whole government was a partisan political tool.

The only thing they ever wanted to protect you from was being governed by someone other than themselves.

user-pic
....There were clear signs on Saturday that the security forces were ill-prepared to handle the crisis. Much of that was because of systemic problems, interviews with officials showed. There is little information-sharing among law enforcement agencies....

On broader questions about India’s security, a report by The Indian Express daily newspaper on Saturday pointed out that a warning about possible militant infiltration by sea had come more than a year ago: in March 2007, when Defense Minister A. K. Antony told Parliament that the government had received intelligence reports that such attacks might happen. A parliamentary investigative panel found serious gaps in the Indian Navy and Coast Guard’s ability to monitor sea routes because of a lack of long-range surveillance equipment, including aircraft, according to The Indian Express....


from
India Faces Reckoning as Terror Toll Eclipses 170

The flip side to your argument is third world anarchy and chaos, where no one has any rights, including the right to life and limb. It's not clear yet, but it so far it seems more to me that India might have still have a problem of laissez-faire freedom, the freedom of incompetence by their government at insuring rule of law, that rule of law from which all other rights flow.

I feel sorry for Obama on this front. I know he knows terrorism is still an important issue as to maintaining civilization as we know it, it's not the immediate effects so much as the secondary economic and psychological effects. And I know he also knows that people are going to tar any security measures with the brush of the Bush administration.

I'd just like to remind everyone that they have metal detectors in courtrooms for good reason, because courtrooms are there to ensure your other rights.


user-pic


This is a most excellently informed reply, artappraiser. Thanks very much.

It is still difficult for me to believe that India is not attempting to monitor terror groups, even if they are unable to do so because of competency. I think my original point still stands--that you just can't stop terrorism, even if you're George W. Bush or Adolf Hitler. If they're going to hit you...they will.

user-pic

More on this front from yesterday. India is far far from a security-obssessed state, quite the opposite--the "citizens' lives are cheap" thing still appears quite operational there:

Lack of Preparedness Comes Brutally to Light

By ROBERT F. WORTH

Published: December 3, 2008

MUMBAI, India

In the wake of last week’s devastating terrorist attacks here, one thing has become clear: India’s security forces are so spectacularly unprepared, its intelligence agencies so riven by conflict and miscommunication, that it lacks the ability to respond adequately to such attacks, much less prevent them.

This nation of 1.2 billion has only a few hundred counterterrorism officials in its intelligence bureau. Its tiny, ill-paid police force has little training, few weapons and even less ammunition. The coast guard has fewer than 100 working boats for a shoreline nearly 5,000 miles long.

In the latest revelation of India’s lack of preparedness, on Wednesday, a full week after the attacks, sniffer dogs discovered a bag with a 17-pound bomb that was left by the terrorists in the city’s central train station and that was later deposited in a pile of lost bags, police officials said. The police defused the bomb on the spot and never bothered to clear the station, Victoria Terminus.....

Many Indians were stunned to discover how easily, and thoroughly, the group of militants initially overpowered the police who tried to stop them (all but one of the militants were eventually shot dead). The attackers all had AK-47 rifles and pistols, and plenty of ammunition — far more firepower than any of the officers who confronted them. None of the police officers who initially encountered the terrorists had bulletproof vests, allowing the attackers to kill a number of them quickly, despite some heroic efforts at resistance.

Scenes from closed-circuit cameras, played endlessly on TV in the days after the attacks, showed police officers running from the gunmen alongside terrified civilians.....

The Mumbai police are given scarcely any training and no opportunities to fire their weapons, Mr. Hotkar said. Starting salaries are 3,050 rupees a month, just over $60 — not enough to live on, he added.

“Maximum corruption is going on,” Mr. Hotkar said wearily.

Mumbai’s beat officers are not even issued individual radios to communicate with one another. Instead, they must find a nearby “beat marshal,” an officer on motorcycle who is equipped with a radio to report incidents, said Police Inspector Maniksingh P. Patil, an officer at a station house near the hotels that were attacked.

The police officers who are assigned to guard political figures are generally much better trained and equipped, a point that has been the focus of outraged commentary in local newspapers here in the past week.

On Wednesday evening, a throng of angry people gathered near the Taj Mahal hotel, one of the buildings seized by the terrorists. As the demonstrators marched through the streets, many held up banners with slogans like “No Protection, No Security” and “No Protection, No Vote.” There were chants of “Enough is enough!” and promises that they would demand real change.....


user-pic

I have no problem with metal detectors in courtrooms, or airports. Indeed, we had them before 9/11 (which, BTW, involved no weapons or illegal substances smuggled through airport security).

As for all the Bush-era so-called security measures: I hope that Obama will honestly assess these programs. Who did we spy on? How many, how often, based on what criteria? What did we learn, how much did it cost, and what was prevented? The same assessment for 'enhanced interrogation' and combing through our NetFlix records. Let's get serious here. This is likely a huge waste of resources with nothing tangible to show for it.

We do NOT need an expensive ILLUSION of security. If we spend against "security" we need to target it toward real security (more port inspection, securing N-plants, chemical plants, etc. Even hospitals). How hard do you think it would be for a few commandos to steal isotopes from your local hospital?

Whether or not India has warrantless wiretapping, we have no evidence to date that it has ANY value to us. I hope Obama will require such evidence for every program that costs us money. THAT is sound management.

user-pic

Since it appears that the whole plot was planned in and launched from Pakistan, no amount of wiretapping in India would have helped prevent this.

user-pic

I disagree. Wiretapping can be maintained globally. It respects very few borders. Even if Pakistan and India had a hardcore firewall between them (very impractical and not that hard to get around--see China), experienced hackers know no boundaries.

At least, that's what I remember from watching "Swordfish," "The Matrix" and "War Games," Matthew Broderick's finest hour.

user-pic

I am happy to be wire-tapped if it's going to help prevent the next 9/11. We can all argue til we're blue in the face if it actually helps prevent the next attack.

I don't disagree that if they're going to hit you they probably will, but why not try to stop them? I don't want to go through another 9/11.

We'll never know if wiretapping has stopped anything. We can rely on the press reporting such a fact. I'm sure that there's lots happening behind the scenes that we never hear about.

Do I care if the government listens to my conversations with my brother about his Thanksgiving dinner? Not at all. If it helps prevent another 9/11, then I'm all for it. Even if there's a 1% chance that it stops something, it's worth it.

user-pic

What are you willing to sacrifice in the name of our safety?

If you really don't see why listening to private conversations between American citizens without a warrant is bad news, I'm not sure I am interested in your kind of "prevention".

user-pic

I have the impression that the Taj hotel people had been on alert recently. So clearly some kind of trickle down was occurring.

Leave a comment

Daddy-O

user-pic

Following: 0
Followers: 1

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Politics As liberal as is legally allowable.

Favorites

  • Favorite Blogs bartcop--eschaton--This Modern World--Rising Hegemon--Blah3--slacktivist--Media Whores Online (RIP)
  • Favorite Books Cat's Cradle, by Kurt Vonnegut A Confederate General From Big Sur, by Richard Brautigan The Ice Harvest, by Scott Phillips She Had No Enemies, by Dennis Fleming The Good Earth, by Pearl Buck To Brooklyn, With Love, by Gerald Green The Bush Junta, edited by Mack White and Gary Groth I, Claudius & Claudius The God, by Richard Graves The Autobiography Of Malcolm X, by Malcolm X and Alex Ross Maus, by Art Spiegelman Burr, by Gore Vidal Candide, by Voltaire The New Testament--but ONLY the red letters
  • Favorite Quotes "We've got 'em right where we want 'em." --John McCain, 10-08

Bio

I'm a professional musician, a professional editor, a graphic artist, a memoirist and a screenwriter. My pond is the place to be. Go Cubs!

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address