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.
Advertisement





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.
November 30, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 30, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 30, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
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:
December 5, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 30, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 30, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 30, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 30, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
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".
December 1, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have the impression that the Taj hotel people had been on alert recently. So clearly some kind of trickle down was occurring.
December 1, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink