NYtimes OPed pro-wiretapping 8/2

["Omegaman" <omega@bigeasy.com>]

found this today as well.  One negative reply letter was also posted.

reference:
<http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/early/02heym.html>


"August 2, 1996


          Listening in on Terrorism

          By PHILIP HEYMANN

          CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- President Clinton's major proposals
          for new powers to fight terrorism are useful and pose
          no threat to Americans' civil liberties. "

( oooookkaaay...)

"         Many of these measures are intended only to give government
          as much power to thwart terrorism as it already has to
          combat other criminal acts."

(do go on...I'm fascinated now)


"         The part of the plan that has drawn the most criticism from
          across the political spectrum involves proposals to increase
          the Government's investigative powers, particularly through
          wiretapping and other methods of monitoring phone calls. "

[..snip..]
(assertion follows that current laws are inadequate for electronic 
surveillance against terrorism.)


"        In criminal cases the courts have never considered the use
          of devices that record the numbers of incoming or outgoing
          calls on a telephone to be significant invasions of privacy."

(Never mind what the "people" might say)

"         But there is no similar provision for investigations of
          suspected foreign terrorists. Under the President's
          proposal, agents would be allowed to use the devices if they
          can show that it is relevant to a terrorism investigation."

(not exactly sure how a terrorist investigation differs from a 
criminal investigation...but this is the distinction Heyman is 
drawing.  In his view, current law is not sufficient against domestic 
terrorist investigation.) 

"        Under current law, officials must get a separate warrant for
          each phone the suspect uses unless they can prove the
          suspect is changing phones purposely to thwart
          investigation. This is a stricter standard than is applied
          even to requests to plant a microphone to overhear a 
          suspect."

[..snip..]


"        Government agents would still be required to
          show probable cause that the suspect is committing one of
          the offenses on the Federal list and that the calls being
          monitored will concern that crime. "

(Gosh!  Who knew the government and the FBI were so powerless?)


"        Philip Heymann, a former Deputy Attorney General in the
          Clinton Administration, is a professor at Harvard Law School
          and the Kennedy School of Government. 

                      Copyright 1996 The New York Times Company "

(big shock, eh?)
...
To say that Mr. Heymann is being misleading is an understatement.  He 
ignores that the government wishes to be able to wiretap for 48 hours 
without prior court approval.  He attempts to imply that the roving 
wiretap is focused on an individual rather than a location or 
locations.  And he seems to believe that all of these enormous powers 
will not be abused.

I wonder if he would feel differently if his personal FBI file was 
among those gathered by the Clinton administration.

me
--------------------------------------------------------------
 Omegaman <omega@bigeasy.com>
 PGP Key fingerprint =  6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2  
                        59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 
send a message with the text "get key" in the "Subject:"
field to get a copy of my public key.
--------------------------------------------------------------