« Our Shameful Literacy Problem | Main | The "Screwed-upness Of Iraq" And Why It's OK »
January 05, 2006
Christiane Amanpour And The Surveillance Question
AcademicElephant asks some thoughtful questions about the suggestion that Christiane Amanpour was placed under some sort of government surveillance. (Thanks to Mark Coffey at Decision '08.) AE writes (emphases mine):
As Mark's commenter Colin pointed out on Decision'08, Amanpour is most likely in contact with our enemies, even with Al Qaeda, in the pursuit of her work as a reporter with a Middle East beat. As Colin says, "[s]he's doing her job." Fair enough, but it leaves me with a series of questions [...]: if Amanpour is in contact with these admittedly terrorist characters does her status as a reporter give her an automatic free pass from surveillance that would be appropriate for any other citizen? Or does the government have the responsibility to monitor her activity, too --and to not take any action against her if it is deemed legitimate and harmless to national security (even if they don't like her reporting)?
Don't get me wrong; the idea of government surveillance of the press makes me uneasy, no matter who's in the White House. But as I've discussed, I do think there are instances when some civil liberties have to bend in the face of security. In these cases should the press be free from the restrictions that are placed on the rest of us for the common good? [...]
What I think we should keep in mind here is that laws are dreamed up, argued, modified, argued some more, and then passed into law. They are the creation of imperfect beings--our very own chosen representives. Now the general idea of the rule of law is sancrosanct, but the affairs of men and women generate great clouds of gray areas in which slavish adherence to a law written for a different context can rightly be questioned.
I'm certainly not a judicial scholar or historian, but there seems to be well-justified cases where common sense is allowed to take precedence over a standing law: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War; and although I can't find the link, I've read interesting opinions on the situations where the sovereign law of nations justifies the attack of one country upon another.
The outrage over the mere suggestion that Amanpour was surveilled is based on a rather far-fetched idealism. Does anyone actually think that the government will prevent CNN from broadcasting any story? That NSA goons will march into Christiane's cubicle and confiscate her computer? And as AE points out, there are unfortunately very good reasons to mistrust some members of our legal profession.
Amanpour might indeed be in contact with individuals of questionable motive. I have no problem whatsoever with that, but the government should be allowed to act in a corresponding degree. NSA surveillance would be completely unjustified for a journalist investigating a domestic scandal. But wartime is an clearly a non-normal time, and if Amanpour is in contact with people obviously connected with our enemies then no one should be surprised that the government is interested. Again, no one is throwing her in jail over it.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/484
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Christiane Amanpour And The Surveillance Question:
» sex theater from sex theater
shit-happens 834829 Aggregator of sex theater sites [Read More]
Tracked on June 25, 2007 04:30 AM
