“A decent society never accepts or justifies torture...."

“A decent society never accepts or justifies torture.  It dehumanizes both torturer and victim, yet seldom produces reliable intelligence.  Torture by rogue American troops or agents puts all Americans at risk, especially our rank-and-file soldiers stationed in dozens of dangerous places around the globe.  It is not difficult to imagine American soldiers or travelers being taken hostage and tortured as some kind of sick retaliation for Abu Ghraib.  

Beyond that is the threat posed by unchecked executive power. [...] But the argument for extraordinary wartime executive powers has been made time and time again, always with bad results and the loss of our liberties.  That’s why it is precisely during times of relative crisis that we should adhere most closely to the Constitution, not abandon it.  The Founders were especially concerned about the consolidation of power during times of war and national emergencies.” -Pages 119 & 120 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“The Patriot Act violates the Constitution by allowing..."

“The Patriot Act violates the Constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probably cause.  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts [...] may issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records.  It can do so secretly, and the person who turns over the records is muzzled and cannot ever speak of the search.  The attorney general is given the power, with no judicial oversight, to write “national security letters” ordering holders of any of your personal records to hand them over for the government to examine - a power that has already been abused.  You would have no way of knowing that this had been done.

....

In fact, a requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause may help law enforcement officials focus their efforts on true threats, thereby avoiding the problem of information overload that is handicapping the government’s efforts to identify sources of terrorist financing. 

History demonstrates that the powers we give the federal government today will remain in place indefinitely.  How sure are we that future presidents won’t abuse those powers? Politically motivated IRS audits and FBI investigations have been used by past administrations to destroy political enemies.  Past abuses of executive surveillance are the reason FISA was passed in the first place.” -Page 115 & 116 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

 

“What was frequently overlooked amid the..."

“What was frequently overlooked amid the ensuing controversy was that the executive branch apparently carried out even more invasive activities, but we never got any answers about those.  When asked whether they had engaged in domestic wiretapping or carried out warrantless searches of people’s homes or correspondence, officials have responded with carefully worded assurances that these things were not done under the program then under discussion - i.e., the Terrorist Surveillance Program.  But were these things being done pursuant to some other program?  No answer.  

When the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, for example, he dealt with questions about whether the administration had engaged in warrantless wiretapping of purely domestic calls.  “Not under the program in which I’m testifying,” came the reply.  Such activity, the attorney general said, was “beyond the bound of the program which I’m testifying about today.”

We do know that for some period of time between September 11, 2001, and March 2004, the executive branch was engaged in a kind of surveillance that was so at odds with American law that then Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and Deputy Attorney General James Comey threatened to resign if it continued.  What exactly was the executive branch up to that caused so much dissent even among its own loyalists? Who was victimized during this time?  Why are we not hearing the answers - or even the questions?” -Pages 113 & 114 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“If this interpretation of AUMF were correct..."

“If this interpretation of AUMF were correct, moreover, parts of the Patriot Act would have been unnecessary.  Finally, given that FISA, the existing law, deals explicitly and specifically with intelligence gathering, while AUMF [Authorization to Use Military Force] says nothing at all about foreign intelligence, FISA would automatically trump AUMP as a matter of legal principle, even if the administration’s interpretation were correct.

The administration itself didn’t seem to take this argument seriously.  When asked why, if the administration considered FISA inadequate to its purposes, it had not sought to amend it, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales frankly testified that they didn’t think they would be able to win congressional approval for amendments to FISA.  So they proceeded with the program anyway.  [....] Why did they consider amending FISA in order to give themselves a power they supposedly already had?

....

What was the real reason for the program, then?  Who was targeted and why?  No answers to these questions have been forthcoming.  Bland assurances that our leaders are trustworthy and good, and would never abuse powers they have secretly exercised in defiance of the law, can hardly be taken seriously by those who believe in a free society.  Remember Jefferson’s cautionary words about confidence in men: we should be on our guard against our government officials, binding them down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.  Government surveillance of individuals has been abused in the past, and it has targeted political opponents and the politically unpopular.  That’s why the safeguards that were flaunted here were established in the first place.” - Pages 112 & 113 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“If this interpretation of AUMF were correct..."

“If this interpretation of AUMF were correct, moreover, parts of the Patriot Act would have been unnecessary.  Finally, given that FISA, the existing law, deals explicitly and specifically with intelligence gathering, while AUMF [Authorization to Use Military Force] says nothing at all about foreign intelligence, FISA would automatically trump AUMP as a matter of legal principle, even if the administration’s interpretation were correct.

The administration itself didn’t seem to take this argument seriously.  When asked why, if the administration considered FISA inadequate to its purposes, it had not sought to amend it, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales frankly testified that they didn’t think they would be able to win congressional approval for amendments to FISA.  So they proceeded with the program anyway.  [....] Why did they consider amending FISA in order to give themselves a power they supposedly already had?
....
What was the real reason for the program, then?  Who was targeted and why?  No answers to these questions have been forthcoming.  Bland assurances that our leaders are trustworthy and good, and would never abuse powers they have secretly exercised in defiance of the law, can hardly be taken seriously by those who believe in a free society.  Remember Jefferson’s cautionary words about confidence in men: we should be on our guard against our government officials, binding them down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.  Government surveillance of individuals has been abused in the past, and it has targeted political opponents and the politically unpopular.  That’s why the safeguards that were flaunted here were established in the first place.” - Pages 112 & 113 of The Revolution, A Manifesto