Bravely standing up and telling truth to power, Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine has submitted a bill (.pdf) that would allow the White House to direct spying against whomever it chooses, without a warrant and without meaningful oversight from any branch of government. The general idea seems to be that anybody who acts “in support of” terrorists is open game for unrestricted spying. What exactly does acting “in support of” terrorists mean? The law doesn’t say. According to obscure fringe righties like Bill Frist and Karl Rove both John Cole and I frequently act in support of America’s enemies.
WaPo suggests that a special Intelligence Subcommittee will act as an oversight body, but Greenwald challenges anybody to show where in the law it says that the committee can get in the president’s way if it disapproves. Briefing doesn’t mean anything if 1) you can’t do anything to stop what you’re briefed about, and 2) you face a “$1 million fine and 15 years in prison” if you talk to anybody about it. That’s oversight in the same way that marble statues in the Capitol rotunda exert oversight.
This bill may be an exercise in pointless stupidity if Republicans like Arlen Specter oppose it, as the WaPo reports, but never underestimate Specter’s ability to step back from a principled position. Fortunately we probably won’t need Specter to kill this; it seems to me that the bill is simply to horrendously un-American to last very long in the full light of day. Call it a tin-eared move by a Republican party desperate to find some easy resolution to the growing domestic spying scandal, and a useful window into the country that we would have if the remaining checks on Republican power were finally taken away. Conservatarians, read it and weep.
Ancient Purple
According to many of the right wingers who post at BJ, the answer would be anyone who doesn’t vote Republican, doesn’t have a $2-Chinese-made-I-Support-The-Troops magnet on their car, and doesn’t think Bush is the best thing since sliced bread.
I can’t wait for DeWine to ask the House to re-establish the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities.
Otto Man
I know conservatives claim they believe in small government, but I thought they meant reducing all three branches, not neutering Congress to make the president our almighty and all-powerful ruler.
If it weren’t for their hatred of all things French, I bet the Republicans would’ve just named this the L’Etat C’est Moi Act of 2006.
Pb
Otto Man,
Good point–a monarchy would be ‘small government’, after all…
scarshapedstar
Glad I didn’t vote for this.
Bob In Pacifica
Let’s see how the free press steps up on this. Let’s see how the papers in Ohio greet DeWine’s law.
I used to get scared, now I get depressed. Is it okay for me to get my hat and coat before they take me away, or do they just shoot me in the front yard.
Sick sick sick.
Jim Allen
If only the Democrats had been smart enough to get a bill passed making it legal to lie about getting a blow job, we could have saved the country a lot of heartache.
Eural
Aren’t the terrorists the one’s who are suppossed to be attacking our freedoms and liberties?
Bin Laden took out a building – at this rate the Republicans will destroy the US government. Ironic, no?
Steve
Greenwald is absolutely right that not only does the Congressional subcommittee not have the power to do anything if it dislikes the program, it would probably be unconstitutional to give the subcommittee any power of that sort.
But if you favor any kind of oversight of the Executive Branch whatsoever, you’re aiding the terrorists and weakening our national security. At least until 2009.
Otto Man
Clearly, we have to destroy America in order to save it.
an american
Instead of taking an oath of office, how about these assholes just skip that hypocrisy on their part and swear allegiance directly to the elephant flag.
Al Maviva
Greenwald’s analysis is pretty facile. When is the last time a legislator went to jail for saying something he shouldn’t have on the floor of Congress? Here’s a hint. Never. It’s called legislative immunity. Second, if the SCSI and the HPSCI don’t like what they see in reports from they AG, they can defund the activity. Congress does this all the time. The language is simple: “no federal funds shall be expended to execute activities authorized by the DeWine Act.” The idea that a couple elderly lawyers in a court somewhere will be able to better rein in the executive branch than then men and women who hold the checkbook, is laughable. Here’s a non-hysterical read of what the Act would do.
You can agree or disagree with it, but it’s not exactly the bonfire of civil liberties that Tim & Greenwald seem to think it is.
And go ahead, Slide, call me a lying liar of lie-ey lies because I summarized the sections and didn’t reprint the entire text of the bill in the original font.
Blue Neponset
Either get rid of the whole program or approve of the activities of the program. So if those committees didn’t approve of one wiretap they would have to defund the whole thing to stop it? That is high stakes oversight.
Ancient Purple
Or the President could, you know, follow FISA the way it is.
Chloeindia
I’m not sure why anyone is surprised that a man/junta that twice stole elections would now want to destroy the system that did not legally elect him/it. This has been about power and about shifting it from the electorate to a small elite group from the very beginning.
I have no sympathy for “conservatives” who are now whining because they have been “fooled.” This trend was obvious before the 2004 election and many of you voted for this regime anyway.
Pb
Ok, Al, I call bullshit–this is a horrible bill. It blatantly allows the government to spy on Americans–especially during the first 30 days–and enables the AG to get the phone companies to back them. Then it lets them use all this information to conduct further fishing expiditions. And, oh yeah, whistleblowers will be punished. And all this power goes to an Executive and an AG that already can’t be trusted to comply with existing law in this area, including actually reporting their actions to Congress. Also, just wait until you see how the President defines terrorism–under his definition, just about anything could be terrorism.
Make no mistake, this is the Enabling Act of our time, not that Bush ever thought he needed one in the first place.
GOP4Me
I’m glad someone in Congress is finally stepping up to support the President on this matter.
Wiretapping and spying only affect you if you have something to hide. If you’re not engaging in any illegal activities, why should you care if the government monitors you? It’s not like there’s any right to privacy in the Constitution, except insofar as left-wing kooks on the Supreme Court interpreted there as being one there in the 1960s and 70s.
Besides, it’s not like this whole wiretapping thing isn’t something we all expected to be going on for decades. What’s the big deal about? Bush is just acting as we’d expect a POTUS in wartime to act. He’s keeping us safe, so we can sleep easy. Whining about it strikes me as ungrateful. A lot of people are putting their lives on the line to defend us, and all you people can do is criticize them for listening in when Ayman Al-Zawahri calls the next Mohammed Atta. Typical liberal gratitude.
Tim F.
You’re misrepresenting the bill. Targeted individuals don’t have to belong to the targeted groups, there merely have to engage in activities “in support of” such a group. As I’ve pointed out, Rove and Frist have very clearly stated that John Cole and I regularly engage in activities in support of terrorist groups. If you think that the law excludes us as targets, super, but where do you get that from? You will not find it in the text that you referenced. Appeals to good faith on the part of the executive branch will get the mocking that they deserve.
Davebo
Hey, if you don’t want to develop a reputation as a dishonest hack, don’t be a dishonest hack in public.
Pretty simple Al.
I hate when people whine about losing what ever credibility they might have had when it was a self inflicted wound.
SeesThroughIt
“If you thought spying on murderous terrorist groups like the Quakers and pacifists in Pittsburgh was great, wait’ll you see our encore!”
Davebo
OK Dougj.. If you’re going to be this obvious why even bother?
Otto Man
I love how Republicans trot out this “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” excuse on the wiretapping issue.
Yeah, I’ll believe their sincerity when that same principle is applied to the administration itself. You know, the one that refuses to release details of Cheney’s secret meetings with energy executives, the one that hasn’t come forth with details on pre-9/11 antiterrorism preparedness, the one that won’t give insight into no-bid contracts to Halliburton or account for billions in missing reconstruction money, the one that’s hidden the scope of the Abu Ghraib scandal or rendition of prisoners to other torture-friendly countries, the one that promised to give info on the high-level meetings between Jack Abramoff and Cabinet members and then backtracked, the one that’s still hiding info on the Valerie Plame outing, and, last but not least, the one that won’t even release the details of the warrantless wiretapping program itself — who’s being spied on, what the numbers are, what the scope is, etc. etc.
Come on, GOP4Me — if they have nothing to fear, why are they afraid of the truth coming out?
Tim F.
I can’t say how much we appreciate your contribution to the site, GOP4ME. Would any of our local Bush defenders care to get behind that statement? Al? GOP’s relatively new here, it would be rude to leave him hanging like that.
danelectro
i’m confused. why can’t the president simply ignore the current laws instead of passing new ones for him to ignore?
zzyzx
Well, for one, I like the idea that I can do what I want without my activities being put in some sort of government database. It’s called – what’s that word again, it’s something the Republicans have been talking up, oh yeah – “freedom.”
And, to be honest, I don’t know if I’ve never engaged in any illegal activities. Sure I haven’t blown anyone up or anything, but there are enough obscure laws out there, that I’m sure I’ve broken one or two of them in the past few years. The easier it is for people to prosecute crimes, the more likely it is that they’ll go after the trivial ones, just because they can
Steve
Yes, Congress can defund activities. But “they” in your first sentence doesn’t refer to Congress. Do subcommittees defund activities?
The fact is that convincing the full Congress to defund a major program of the President’s is still a major, major political step, which this bill does nothing to make any easier. Saying “we’ll legalize your program, but we retain the same right to defund it that we’ve had all along” is about the most meaningless form of “oversight” you could come up with.
Marty Lederman’s analysis which Greenwald quotes says that the subcommittees can do absolutely nothing to stop the program, other than persuading Congress to enact a veto-proof amendment. You call that conclusion facile; I call it true.
Every once in a while, I see wingnuts still calling for Jay Rockefeller to be punished for revealing that satellite program that he didn’t actually reveal. Perhaps Al should turn his rhetorical guns on those folks.
Pb
GOP4Me,
FYI–you’re no conservative. No conservative worth his salt would trust the government here. Incidentally, I care becuase (a) it’s Unconstitutional, and (b) this government and others before it have abused this power in the past (which, indeed, was the rationale for (a) in the first place…)
Or, possibly, the 1760s and 70s. Go read the Federalist Papers, and then come back and tell me what inalienable rights we might have or not have, according to the Founding Fathers–it’s a lot broader than you might think.
Steve
I think it was Darrell who once said your civil liberties don’t mean much when you’re dead.
jg
For those who don’t read Altercation let me re-print an awesome letter.
Talk amongst yourselves.
jg
Ninth amendment.
The Other Steve
I suppose Dewine needs to do this now before he get’s ousted from the Senate in November.
Ancient Purple
Then explain to me why you have an opaque roof on your house and curtains/drapes/shutters/blinds on your windows. If you don’t want to be a hypocrit, pull those window coverings down and let everyone see what you are up to inside your own home.
After all, what could you possibly be doing in there if you have nothing to hide?
Remfin
Defund the program? Are you high? This is a President who just modified a copy of a budget when it was not passed Constitutionally. This is a President who is sending 11%(pretty sure it was 11%) of Homeland Security money via Executive Order to groups that by the law are not allowed to receive the money – just taking 11% of the money earmarked for certain uses and sending it willy-nilly to whoever he wants
Defund the program and he’ll just issue an Executive Order transferring money from some other account. Defund that and he’ll do it again. Until you solve the problem by treating these abuses seriously, treating the symptoms will be completely and utterly pointless because he can never run out of programs to steal from or yet more hoops to create. I mean, we already have a sub-committee on Intelligence, why do we need a sub-sub-committee as these various proposals make? When it’s revealed he’s doing even worse things will we make a sub-sub-sub-committee? When is this going to stop? Oh I know, when all of a sudden it’s a Democrat in the office, then all of a sudden it will be a pressing problem that cannot, MUST NOT, stand!
SeesThroughIt
Damn, that’s a hell of a letter. Thanks for posting that, jg.
Eural
You know I’m perfectly aware that I’m not committing any crimes right now that I don’t want the government to see. The problem arises when perfectly legitimate behavior right now suddenly becomes illegal in the future and somebody, somewhere in the government has all the goods on many “innocents” today. Of course, no one in their right mind would ever take advantage or blackmail in such a situation, right?
GOP4Me
Thanks, Tim, good to be here.
Well, what I said is true. If you’re not doing anything wrong, what should you be ashamed of?
You have the freedom to do whatever legal activities you want to do. Does that mean everyone around you has to gouge their own eyes out so they can’t see you do it? Is that freedom to you? Sounds downright Iranian, to me.
And then you can elect legislators who will do away with those laws. It’s called civic responsibility, something many Americans need to learn more about.
Are the Federalist Papers part of American jurisprudence? Hamilton and John Jay weren’t the only Founders, you know.
That’s exactly the point I’m trying to make, here.
Warren Stevenson
It will surprise absolutely nobody to learn that Al Mavia has no idea what he is talking about. The Supreme Court in Gravel v. the U.S. – which REJECTED a claim of immunity made by a Senator who read classified information from teh Pentagaon Papers as part of a Committee proceeding — made expressly clear that the “Speech and Debate” clause does NOT exempt members of Congress from punishment when they violate the criminal law, even if the violation occurs on the floor of the Congress. They made equally clear that disclosing classified information in a speech IS a crime for which there is no immunity:
The Court held that immunity does not allow a Senator to violate a criminal law just because he’s doing it on the Senate floor. Thus, any Senator who reported illegal eavesdropping would be breaking the criminal law and risking imprisonment under this bill.
Al Mavia will say anything, even just make shit up, all the time. But we already know that.
GOP4Me
Nope, don’t see the word “privacy” in there anywhere, don’t see it spoken of in any other amendment. Don’t know if it was meant to be there or not. Really don’t see it much of anyplace before Griswold v. Connecticut. Thanks for trying, though. If you liberals care so much about privacy, why not push for a Constitutional Amendment? That way we can see the arguments pro and con, and have a national dialogue on the subject. Until then, all I see are activist judges running away with vague passages from our most sacred national document.
Well, some things wouldn’t be decent for the neighborhood children to see. But if it’s necessary for the government to see it in order to protect me, I don’t necessarily have a problem with that.
Do you really want an answer to this question, or was it purely rhetorical?
Warren Stevenson
I don’t see the word “eavesdropping” or “surveillance” in Article II. By your “reasoning,” that means that the President doesn’t have this power under Article II, right?
Darrell
Nope, never said it, not even close.. but then again, honesty is not Steve’s strong suit
There have been ‘secret programs’ in place involving national security matters since the founding of this country. That’s why we have the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, among other checks in place. I have read nothing about the President’s program involving monitoring of foreign enemies to be anything approaching the horrible overreach that the left would like you to believe
Darrell
I love the “speaking truth to power” bit. Do you lefties go to some sort of school to get your talking points?
Otto Man
We all know how important intellectual honesty is to you, Senator Cornyn.
Jim Allen
Whether GOP4Me is real or a spoof, it’s people who think like him that scare the shit out of me and make me fear for the future of my country. And they’re out there.
DougJ
Neither Senator Cornyn nor GOP4Me has tried to say “Clinton did the same thing” yet. What’s going on here?
Darrell
Ask yourself, when the details of the President’s program were (illegally?)leaked by the NY Times, was the left’s first reaction something like:
“We support efforts to monitor foreign terrorists, but we’d like to see about more oversight on this program to protect civil liberties”
or was their first reaction more like:
“BushHitler is shredding the constitution!! The program is illegal (even though I don’t have details on it)”…??
An honest answer to that question says it all about why the left can never be trusted with national security
jg
It says that the fact that some rights were enumerated doesn’t mean there aren’t others and can’t be used to deny other the existence of other rights. Its saying not all rights were spelled out but we still have them. By saying the word ‘privacy’ isn’t there you are doing exactly what it says you shouldn’t do. People like you are exactly who Hamilton was talking about when he said its foolish to enumerate some of the rights, soem people in the future will say the are our only rights. The surprising part is he was talking about elected leaders. He’d probably have a heart attack if he heard a citizen trying to deny himself rights.
But who’s the bigger idiot? You? Or me for trying to talk to you?
DougJ
Do you lefties go to some sort of school to get your talking points?
Not everyone can be as original as you, Senator.
Darrell
In other words, even if GOP4Me is a complete spoof who doesn’t believe a word of what he posts, he scares the shit out of you. Behold the intellectual depth of the left
Tim F.
Darrell, now that you’re here I wonder whether you’d be willing to get GOP4ME’s back. Here’s his quote:
Sounds reasonable, no?
GOP4Me
Well, I agree with it anyway, Darrell. It’s the truth. You can’t be free if you’re dead, and the Administration is trying to keep us from getting killed by people who hate us. It’s all quite clear-cut, really, and I don’t see what all the complicated fuss is about. Bush is acting within the context of a wartime Presidency, here. It’s not like back in the days when Clinton was too busy chasing interns around the Oval Office to notice the warning signs.
Clinton:Bush::Buchanan:Lincoln
Exactly, we have oversight. Just because the oversight doesn’t blare national security secrets out on CNN 24 hours a day doesn’t mean there isn’t any oversight.
Ancient Purple
And all along, I was told that socialism was going to lead to a nanny state.
I stand corrected. It’s neo-conservativism.
DougJ
BushHitler
Don’t you mean Chimpy McHitlerburton? Why don’t you have one of your staffers try to come up with a better spoof nickname for him, Senator?
Steve
You can’t run from the truth.
Darrell
No it doesn’t, but thanks for playing Tim
GOP4Me
Hamilton was a great man. He was shot and killed by Aaron Burr, a Tammany Hall archaeo-Democrat, you know, who later tried to carve a personal empire out of the Mississippi River area. Something you don’t hear much about in the current anti-wiretapping debates, but the only reason that plot was uncovered in time was the timely action of an informant. If it hadn’t been for that informant, this nation might not exist in its current form today.
As for “privacy,” if it’s not there what gives you the right to put it there? Since all liberal sexual deviancies come from this supposed right, why can’t we have a national debate on the subject? You’ll get your chance to speak, and if you make a convincing enough argument you might even get ME to vote for a privacy amendment. But you have to make the argument first, and so far no one has done that on the national stage. (Supreme Court opinions don’t count, only lawyers read those. Voters need to think this issue through, that’s why we need a Constitutional debate.) I don’t see what about that would kill Alexander Hamilton even IF a Democrat hadn’t already shot him.
I know. These people are deranged, Darrell. Deranged and stupid.
GOP4Me
I’m not sure if those words even existed back in the 18th century.
Darrell
Touche
GOP4Me
Why not, Darrell? What do we care if people are watching us as we do nothing illegal? What if we never even find out about it, how does it affect us?
Andrei
Welcome to the end game people.
It’s through opposition to blatant acts of tyrrany this bill represents where we will find true patriots in this country. So far, it’s obvious that GOP4ME and Darrell don’t fit in that category, but that’s obvious to everyone else but themselves.
To the right wing… you guys keep begging for a fight. And ironically, it’s a fight you don’t want to engage in because not only do you lose on pure principal or basic logic, if you win in the power struggle, we all lose as what you guys are creating is not democracy and is not America. Wake up and start acting like Americans again.
All this time the left has been called into question on their patriotism over political issues the last few years. However, it is this sort of legisaltion that is truly heinous and about as tyrannical as it gets. It’s a national travesty, and all those on the right who are enabling this farce to continue need to stop it.
Tim F.
Thanks for clearing that up. I don’t believe that GOP4ME is a spoof but I’ve been wondering who exactly he represents. He seems too out there even for you, but since rightwingers generally don’t disagree with each other in front of the lefties I figured that it was necessary to ask.
Otto Man
The only way that analogy works is if you’re comparing the length of their last names.
jg
No need for an amendment. Its already there. The bill of rights doesn’t limit our rights.
GOP4Me
The sky isn’t falling, Andrei, although it’s easy to see how those on the left would try to score political points by saying that it was. This end game is over, thanks for playing, you lose and America wins.
Yeah, I’m confused by it, too. Didn’t all of us conservatives get our talking points from the same VRWC? (/snark)
Or if you’re talking about the US Civil War and its run-up. As I was.
They don’t create imaginary rights, too. Otherwise, what’s to stop you from marrying your dog? The Constitution doesn’t EXPLICITLY prohibit it, and the 9th Amendment MIGHT support it, so why not marry a dog this weekend? What’s to stop people from advancing that argument?
SeesThroughIt
Now THAT’S some good spoofin’!
Scott Chaffin
WTF are you talking about?
GOP4Me
It’s typical left-wing alarmism. “The sky is falling, the Fascists have taken over the capitol, if you don’t all vote liberal the Thought Police will take you away in trucks 30 seconds after the election results come in!”
Pay it no mind, shrill hyperbole is all the left has going for it at this point.
Andrei
It isn’t? Then why do we need to bother with this sort of legislation in the first place? What is its purpose if indeed, the sky is *NOT* falling?
And for the last time… I’m not a leftie. I’ve voted Libertarian (mostly as a protest vote, but I’d prefer Lib over Green party quite honestly which shows I lean right, not left) in basically every election since I was 20. I’ve only voted Democractic for the executive branch *precisely* because of my fear that the rightwing has no idea how to weild the power of that office effectively. It appears my fears are justified.
Pb
GOP4Me,
Yes.
GOP4Me
I thought the purpose of this legislation was to keep rabid liberals in check.
In other words, you used to be a conservative, but now you’ve been brainwashed by all the hysterical rhetoric into voting Democrat. I’m sorry for you, but I’m sorrier for America. 49% of the public seems to have fallen for the same schtick.
GOP4Me
Really? So an assortment of newspaper op-eds from the 1780s is binding law alongside our Constitution and statutes? News to me.
Better watch what you people say around here, in 300 years it might be binding law and someone might get killed or go to jail because of it.
Otto Man
So… Clinton presided over the disintegration of our Union, and President Divider Not a Uniter has brought us together?
Otto Man
As opposed to the right, which only has its pants-pissing paranoia and its willingness to shred the Constitution so it can sleep better at night.
Tell you what, if you don’t like America, feel free to go live in some dictatorship where the government will keep you safe in exchange for your forfeiting your freedom. You’ll sleep soundly there, I’m sure.
GOP4Me
No, Clinton presided over doing nothing about a grave threat to our union, and now Bush is saving us from this threat.
In that sense, Clinton:Bush::Buchanan:Lincoln.
Andrei
You’re a tool. Read the bill. Then imagine the power of wiretapping as applied to when Hilary Clinton wins in 2008.
As a sidenote, personally, if Hilary Clinton wins in 2008, I probably will seriously consider moving to New Zealand. The thought that our executive branch changing hands between two families for 24 years is utterlty sickening. 20 is has been intolerable enough as it iss.
Otto Man
Seriously, Doug J, stop. I can only play along for so long, but nobody is this much of a Bush cultist.
GOP4Me
Well, if that’s how you define concern for keeping America safe, it’s easy to see how candidates like John Kerry get as far as they do.
No thanks, I love this place. Weren’t you liberals the ones who were supposed to jump ship and swim to New Zealand if Bush won in ’04? Well, the Pacific Ocean hasn’t gone anywhere, and as far as I know New Zealand’s still on the other side of it…
Ancient Purple
Considering that both words stem from the Middle Ages, yes, they existed in the English lexicon and were known to our Founders.
GOP4Me
Billary won’t win. We’ll use the wiretapping power to unearth any illegal activities she’s probably been performing. Never fear.
I wouldn’t lose any sleep worrying about it. The only Democrat who could win in 2008 is Lieberman, and I seriously doubt he’ll be running.
I ain’t DougJ, Blottoman.
GOP4Me
Fascinating. Tell me, did the phrase “gay marriage” exist back then? Does it exist in the US Constitution? What about the phrase “Al Qaeda”? No? Then I guess the Founders weren’t anticipating EVERY crisis we’d face in wartime for the next 10,000 years, were they?
Rome Again
The suction action you have going from that liplock you have on Bush’s ass must really hurt your cheeks sometimes, huh?
Rome Again
What drugs are you on?
Jim Allen
Darrell —
Read what I wrote again, asshole. I said “it’s people who think like him” that scare me. Behold the enormous stupidity that is Darrell. God, what a shithead.
Otto Man
So a loose constructionist view of the Constitution is fine if we’re talking about gay marriage or al-Qaeda, but means nothing as far as a right to privacy goes? Nice double standard you’ve got there.
SeesThroughIt
I see you took my exhortations to step up your trolling game to heart. You’re still no DougJ, but this is much better than the slapdash stuff you’ve been posting the past couple days. Keep up the good work!
Pb
GOP4Me,
Yes.
No.
Step away from the goalposts.
CaptainComeback
Rule of law is for communists, feminists, gays, French teachers, socialists, Rhode Islanders, reform Jews and anyone in the Democratic Party. I wish DeWine went further and gave The President power to throw anyone who doesn’t agree with Him into jail immediately for high treason. We are in a War on Terrorism and swarthy people around the world; its time to swear allegiance to Our Dear Leader, for He knows all and He can protect us.
Pb
CaptainComeback,
You’ve captured the essence of it, more or less. However, your dialogue needs some updating. You forgot to use these words: ‘terrorists’, ‘sedition’, and ‘ragheads’. Also, consider mentioning that we’re keeping all of our options open, like the option to ‘nuke mecca’, or more generally to ‘turn the middle east into a glass parking lot’. 7/10
Tim F.
Scott Chaffin,
Rove:
Frist:
The president:
I take your response to mean that you don’t think that criticizing the president amounts to acting ‘in support of’ America’s enemies. If you really think that way, bully for you. Unfortunately the warrantless wiretapping will be managed by the people I quoted above and not by you.
I hope that clears up your question.
Rome Again
I guess since even neoconservatives are calling the Bush administration incompetent these days, the wingnuts are feeling threatened. This can be the only reason why they’ve stepped up their rhetoric to the point of worship for their boy king, sovereign ruler of the 33% approval rating.
Otto Man
Maybe they think Bush is only incompetent because we don’t believe in him enough. (Once again, it’s the Tinkerbell cry — clap harder!)
Rome Again
Oh yeah, because we all know it’s the cheerleaders who actually win the game, not the players who actually CARRY THE BALL.
Pooh
I think it was the great statesman Rick Pitino who said “All the negativity in this town sucks”
Jim Allen
And don’t forget, it’s the sportswriters who actually lose the game. Damn media.
CaptainComeback
Pb,
I know my sarcasm can never reach the heights of Doug, because, well, he’s renowned all over the Internets. While I try and add to my list of shadowy folks (liberals, communists, artists), I believe Doug should add the evangelical notation towards God (His, He) to his repertoire. After all, many in the conservative movement basically believe GW Bush to be some sort deity. Maybe in Greek Mythology he would have been the God of Security or the God of Tax Cuts. Perhaps a hybrid animal, like the centaur. Half elephant, half patriot.
Jim Allen
Head of an elephant. Ass of a horse.
Rome Again
You’d rather sheep that quietly go anywhere without caring one iota if a blade is at the end of the trip?
What I hear you saying is “trust us”, okay, I’ll consider trusting you, when you name ten pieces of non-controversial legislation that your side has enacted. Notice I said “non-controversial”, your “uniter, not a divider” president doesn’t have that kind of record.
I’ll give Bush credit for going into Afghanistan after 9/11 (and I didn’t like him but still believed he did the right thing there) other than that, I can’t see anything “centrist” that he has done.
Otto Man
That works, but it should be a horse’s ass covered in a diaper.
Two reasons: (1) the public appearance of the naughty parts would truly be an affront to God and, thus, the nether regions should be hidden; and (2) Republicans are constantly pissing/shitting themselves in fear.
JWeidner
This is absolutely amazing discussion here. GOP4ME, I’m forced to conclude that books like 1984 and Farenheit 451 must represent wet dreams to a person like you.
Honestly, we should all be under surveillance because we shouldn’t have anything to hide? Regardless of your supposed good intentions, it is amazing to me that you would be so willing to throw away your freedoms in the name of supposed security.
Personally, I would rather be killed while living free than go meekly into the night, bleating like a sheep…apparently that’s what you would prefer GOP4ME.
It is amazing to me that a terrorist attack on US soil is SO frightening, that a so-called conservative is willing to endorse a larger, more invasive government.
BOO! GOP4ME…the terrorists are coming to get you. Better cry to the government for more protection.
Pooh
Rome, my point was that Pitino was the one who was in fact sucking…
Jim Allen
In fairness to Mr. Pitino, it wasn’t his fault. He really wanted Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parrish to walk through that door, but they just refused.
Rome Again
Well, I apologize for the misunderstanding, I don’t know Pitino, but it surely sounds like a few people here think we who oppose this administration are the ones full of negativity, and actually, it is they who bought into Bush’s campaign to sell them fear.
CaptainComeback
I don’t know about you guys, but I think this is the perfect time for the premiere of V for Vendetta.
Pooh
Douglas MacArthur, George S. Patton and W.T. Sherman are not walking through that door. Hence going to war with the army we have…
Rome Again
Davebo
Isn’t it a bit odd that guys like GOP4ME who remind us that if we aren’t doing anything wrong we have nothing to fear are the same folks who applauded Ashcroft when he said we can’t compare known terrorists on a watch list to names of people who applied for gun purchases.
Jim Allen
Be careful what you ask for. I understand that Senator DeWine will be submitting a bill that will allow the administration to do that, too.
Otto Man
GOP4Me and Darrell should see that. I mean, somebody should be in the audience rooting for the fascist government in that film.
Pooh
Rome, he was the Coach/GM of the Boston Celtics some years ago, and in the midst of increasingly bad press for running the team into the ground, he unleashed the following:
Top 5 sports rant of recent times (alongside Jim Mora’s “Playoffs?!?!?!?” bit, pick a Bobby Knight press conference, Jim Everett leaping over the table at Jim Rome and Kenny Williams unloading on Frank Thomas this spring.)
Rome Again
Not really Davebo, it just shows a lack of reasoning which I already knew they had.
They’ve got this silly little notion that all that their leaders say would fit into some tight little ideological book, and make all the sense in the world. Just like they believe the Bible has no contradictions at all.
Otto Man
Priceless. “OK ….. Chris.”
Rome Again
And how exactly did that turn out Pooh? How did the record of that team he was trying to sell to the fans turn out? Sorry, I don’t follow sports (I hear John saying “off with her head” slowly in the background).
Rome Again
You’re not telling me anything I don’t know Jim, I fully expect ideologues of this government to off me one day, but until they do, I refuse to be afraid of the fear they try to sell me.
SeesThroughIt
Jim Mora’s “Playoffs?!? Playoffs?!?!?” rant is so classic, I can barely see the word “playoffs” without hearing it in my head with Mora’s incredulous inflection.
GOP4Me
Typical liberalism.
Well, it IS Saint Paddy’s Day, but my wife won’t let me drink until later so that doesn’t matter very much.
I read them in high school. They were okay, I guess. 1984 didn’t have very believable character interactions.
Without security, there is no freedom. Except the freedom to die, or the freedom of anarchy. Quite a selection, thanks.
No, I’d prefer NOT to be killed. I’d rather pay for a government that kills my enemies while making sure I’m NOT killed. I guess that’s the difference between you and me.
This is a time of national security. When the crisis subsides, so will the government, and you can have your precious fancy schmancy “freedoms” back. Deal?
This is what the 2nd Amendment is for. When the government can’t help, and you have to help yourself.
Rome Again
Are you serious? You don’t realize that Bush has created a perpetual enemy? There is no “when the crisis subsides” here. You have bought into perpetual fear and you don’t even realize it. Are you really that daft?
Do you realize that to kill off “the enemy” that means killing off about a billion people?
Rome Again
Let me guess, you are your own militia?
Otto Man
Spoken like a true totalitarian.
Here’s what an American patriot had to say: “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither.” — Benjamin Franklin
And Franklin was someone who was committing rebellion against the British crown, a crime for which he could have been tried and hung as a traitor.
You, meanwhile, are worried that the Islamocooties are coming and want to scrap everything because you think that America — a country that survived a Civil War, two World Wars, and fifty years of Cold War nuclear armageddon hanging over its head without scrapping its fundamental balance of powers — somehow needs an unfettered monarch to protect you.
Rome Again
Typical liberalism.
Really? I’m fiscally conservative, that would make me at least a moderate.
Rome Again
A president who by the way has done little to secure our borders since 9/11.
GOP4Me
No, I fully expect the next Democratic President to come along, declare victory, and let the enemy regroup. True victory will elude us for at least the next 25 years in this struggle, but I’m confident that ultimately we’ll prevail. Probably after NYC is a radioactive hole in the ground, though.
No, the enemy is merely a few thousand people hiding within that billion. We could try “draining the swamp” after NYC goes, but that wouldn’t work. I think the only solution is to threaten people into giving up the subversives in their midst. It would work a lot better than actually carrying out those threats, although if Iran tries any funny business I’d cheerfully propose making an example of them.
We should’ve made an example of Fallujah a while back, but we neglected to do so. The consequences are there for all to see.
I live in a sea of liberals. What would I need a gun for? These are the most cowardly, weak people imaginable.
Franklin was also a nudist and a pervert, so forgive me if I don’t agree with every quote you toss out there just because it has the name “Benjamin Franklin” attached to the end of it.
We need security in order to have freedom. Franklin didn’t fight the Revolutionary War, he hid out in perfect safety among the Frenchmen and other degenerates. What would he know about providing security? It was provided to him his whole life, as far as I can tell.
Or a libertine who knows how to balance a checkbook. Or, maybe, a Libertarian. Or a Trotskyite pretending to be a Libertarian. I’m sure we can bandy labels about all day, but will it really get us anywhere in the final analysis?
D. Mason
While accurate, your statement is being very soft on Mr. Bush. Infact he has done little to secure anything, besides of course fat no-bid contracts for his buddies. He secured plenty of those.
Rome Again
True, but never let it be said that I totally derided our king.
Rome Again
Yes, it does get us somewhere, because right now, out there in our country, we have many former Republicans who are finding more in common with Democrats. Right now fathers of the neoconservative movement (Fukiyama, Buckley and others) are deciding that what you are preaching is WRONG for America. Everyday, more and more people are agreeing that Bush is not right for this country, and you’re kissing his ass. You are in a growing minority, and given that we have another three years of this administration, your voice really won’t be very well heard eventually. Your position is not as popular these days as you’d like to think it is.
Otto Man
No, I think he realizes that. The handle “GOP4Me” is accurate because pretty soon he’ll be the only one waving the party flag.
Pharniel
War is Peace
War on Terror, War on Drugs, the soon to come War on Abortion and Pornography. It’s a perfect fit.
Freedom is slavery
If you had freedom thenwe’ll al lbe killed, because the government needs to protect us. we’d be slaves to our constant need of personal vigilance.
Ignorance is Strength.
if we know what our executive branch is doing, so do the terrorists, that’s why we can’t ever know. We can trust them. we just have to belive in them hard enough.
GOP4ME: The measure of a civilization’s dedication to democracy and freedom is not the number of rights that it’s citizenry are willing to give up but rather the privations inflicted upon it by it’s enemies that it is willing to endure BECAUSE they are unwilling to give up thier rights and freedoms.
or, in other words, the price of freedome is paid in blood and bodies, and not those spent overseas, but those lost on the home front.
The fact that you are willing to trade as many rights as it takes to achieve 0 home casualties shows that you are in point of fact interested in a totalitarian fascist society, and not interested in democracy and freedom in the least.
We have always been at war with EastAsia.
JWeidner
And Bush was a fornicator, druggie and alcoholic.
Rome Again
No, the enemy is merely a few thousand people hiding within that billion. We could try “draining the swamp” after NYC
You obviously don’t understand arabs. The more you kill them, the more their families come after you.
Steve
“We talkin bout PRACTICE.”
Rome Again
Pharniel, awesome post, do you mind if I frame that?
a guy called larry
Bush:American Presidency::Dogshit:Shoe
Pharniel
Not a Problem Rome.
I’m kinda surprised it turned out coherent.
Rome Again
What is wrong with nudism? God created you nude, you do realize that, right? He intended you to be nude, if you can believe the story in Genesis.
Perversion is in the eye of the beholder, personally I think that humanity was supposed to take it’s cue from nature, where many of the animals switch mates annually. God didn’t create them to be monogamous, why not?
Personally I think God would think of the idea of marriage as an abomination (an idea from man). We do murder the idea of marriage so well in our society.
Rome Again
Furthermore, GOP4ME, Franklin is exactly like every single one of us, he is human and makes mistakes. I guess no one’s opinion should ever be listened to you, according to you, simply because they have bad habits? We all have bad habits, we all have something that we’ve done wrong, we ALL have some reason that someone can call us out and say “you did this, so therefore I refuse to listen”. That’s just ignorance.
King David was a fornicator (he sent a man to die in war so that David could have his wife), yet David is also supposed to be the father of Israel. Even God understands that men are perfect. Who are you to cite perfectionism?
Otto Man
That’s a great point. Why aren’t more fundamentalists embracing nudism? Or, if they’re going to stick with a post-Edenic idea of religion, why don’t they wear nothing but fig leafs?
Rome Again
Even God understands that men are not perfect.
Interesting time for me to decide to drop a word LMAO!
Pooh
Egregious oversight on my part. Nice catch.
Scott Chaffin
Not really, unless either or both of you are a Senator or Representative in your spare time. Then I would hold you to the “politics stops at the water’s edge” concept, an admittedly ancient argument that few seem to honor anymore.
But if you really & truly believe that you and John are in danger of getting wiretapped because of your blogging of personal opinions and not because you’re in a terrorist’s AIM Buddy list, by all means, rage on, brother.
Pb
GOP4Me,
You’re not nearly tolerant or respectful enough of the rights of others to even be a Libertarian–try again.
Rome Again
Scott, define the water’s edge, please?
Do you believe Iraq was a beach at the water’s edge? Personally I think it was a lie, and as such, I intend to point it out whenever I can.
This administration doesn’t take criticism. They praise themselves with propaganda, and shut up anyone who says differently. They are one of the most secret administrations we’ve had for a reason. There are so many things that this administration does to keep their practices quiet. Valerie Plame, Sibel Edmunds, Scooter Libby’s FOI request, committees in Congress not fully convened to hear information. This administration wants no eyes looking upon its deeds, unless they are beholden to their agenda.
If you can’t see this, then all I can say is open your eyes. They put more effort into keeping their affairs secret than they do fighting a good war.
Rome Again
No Pb, he was talking about me since I described myself as moderate instead of liberal… and to be quite honest, I resigned from the Democratic party today (I want to follow leaders that truly lead). I’m not exactly sure what I am right now, but I know I’m not a Republican.
Pb
Rome Again,
So take one of those ever popular political quizzes, they’ll at least give you a vague idea of what you might be. I suggest Political Compass, and Pew’s Typology Test.
Rome Again
Thanks Pb, unfortunately, I’m stuck with John Cole on this on, “my party is leaving me”. They expect me to sit back and wait for them to get balls. I can’t do it.Personally, if they’re too afraid to take a stand, I think they need to leave Washington and give the chair to someone who has some.
I’ve taken these tests before, I know where I stand, I didn’t change, I just got tired of waiting for leaders to lead.
Rome Again
Let me explain, since I seem to be inconsistent, I said “I don’t know what I am right now” and then I said “I know where I stand”. I can see some shaking their heads at that.
My political views haven’t changed. I will have trouble voting straight Dem (or almost straight Dem) ticket now that I’ve realized my leaders have no intention of trying to save this country from this travesty.
I’m not really independent because as bad as Dems are, I have no intention of voting for a bunch of Republicans.
I don’t have enough in common with libertarians or greens to feel comfortable with that vote.
I think I’m probably going to end up staying home for the mid-term election, since I don’t think I can vote anyone into office with any confidence at this time.
By the way, I have had a tendancy to vote some Republicans in the past, I found some that I was convinced were better, but I usually voted at least 90% straight Democratic ticket.
Tim F.
Scott Chaffin,
The president wasn’t limiting his comments to Congresspeople. Let’s go to the tape:
If the government reserves for themselves the right to spy on Americans based on an intentionally ambiguous grounds of suspicion, the problem isn’t that they will but that they can. I find it hard to believe that you want to hand them that sort of power based on nothing more than an appeal to incredulity.
Scott Chaffin
I keep hearing that, usually from people who’ve got every platform and bullhorn known to man. Names, please.
You mean you haven’t been targeted for shutting up yet? How in the world can that be? Because you just said…
GOTO TOP
Water’s edge – our nation’s shores and hence borders; typically used to describe the belief that our nation stands as one in support of our foreign policy as determined and enacted by our elected leaders. Again, it’s archaic, so I’m not surprised you might need a definition. This becomes/became problematic in the digital networked world, which is why it probably is little heeded today or for the last 10-15 years.
Rome Again
I did name names, Valerie Plame (actually Joe Wilson, his wife was the target), Sibel Edmunds, the document requests for Scooter Libby’s trial, and the non-invitation of key members who were by law supposed to be present at certain disclosure meetings for Congressional committees.
Can’t say I didn’t name names, those are just a few instances. Ordinarily, when it is outside of the white house, they use ridicule (the way they speak of the Democratic party in general, the way they talk about certain issues in ridicule, (such as global warming for one).
Of course, the Bush administration doesn’t know I exist, except that I pay taxes (I’m just a number to them), but their base has not only told me to shut up, they have voiced the wish to kill me on several occasions on certain websites (AOL chatboards mostly), not this one, and even told me to leave this country.
The fact is Republicans (both big and small) talk about how shrill the Democrats are, while they go around ridiculing, making death threats (remember Ann Coulter’s desire to see a Supreme Court Justice poisoned?), accusing people of treason and sedition and creating little reason to unite with them.
I don’t want you to die, I don’t want you to live in another country, I simply want us to come to a compromise that your values are right for you, and my values are right for me – I won’t force you to share my values if you don’t force me to share yours. As far as I know, pretty much the entire Democratic party membership feels that way, I’ve been interacting with them for several years now.
Democrats for the most part are very reasonable people (the leaders I can’t vouch for, sorry), but I’ve had discussions with several Republicans who aren’t reasonable at all.
By the way, I grew up in a Republican family (Limbaugh zombies, they were very unreasonable people), and I was, until today, the only Democrat in my family.
Rome Again
Yes, I guess I’d never become familiar with that term. I thought it meant a do or die situation. Nation’s borders I agree with, I personally think we should stop policing the world, BUT, I don’t feel that just because I was born here I have to agree with the policies coming from our leaders. What does one do when they don’t agree with their government, but feel they must, do they deny the thoughts of their mind?
You say it is because the term Water’s Edge became archaic, I seem to believe it is because bad policies have sometimes manifested, and our Constitution does state that we have the right to change our government if it becomes necessary. If we’re beholden to always agree with our leaders (even when they are wrong) how can we ever know when it’s the right time to change our government? Vigilance and distrust is more necessary than blind allegiance.
Rome Again
And speaking of distrust, wasn’t it the Republican party who wanted to keep government small because they didn’t trust the government to always do the right thing? So where and when did this “blind allegiance” thing creep into the Republican creed?
And fiscal responsibility, when did that go away?
The fiscal practices of this administration in trying to bring Democracy to the world (funny that Republicans want to turn the rest of the world into Democrats) are creating an economic nightmare, where did the fiscal responsibility go?
Didn’t Republicans used to be for small government? The Bush administration is (to my knowledge) the largest government we’ve ever had.
Scott Chaffin
All of these people have been imprisoned and/or forbidden to speak? I think not. I don’t know what you’re talking about viz committees…sorry. Regardless, nobody has been ‘shut up.’ As far as your abuse at the hands of the denizens of internet chatrooms, tuff titty, I guess. You’re still typing, aren’t you? I don’t care if you do or not, either.
Good gravy. Who’s directing mind rays at you and forcing you not to think your thoughts? Who’s stopping you from stating your opinion anywhere you’d like to state it? Which govt. agency is forcing you to agree with anybody, anywhere? Go ahead and change the government, already. Can’t wait.
You’re seriously confused, dude. Never mind. I can’t keep up with your digressions. You’re arguing with me about an old phrase you admittedly don’t even understand, and I don’t have the time or energy to explain it to you. Google it and get back to me.
Pb
Rome Again,
I’m a registered Independent, but I’ll most likely be voting for the Democrats–the way I see it, they really are the only game in town at the moment, the only chance for something approaching responsible government–although in the state-wide elections here, I’ll be shocked if any of them actually win, with my vote or no…
Pb
Scott Chaffin,
False.
Rome Again
You described it to me as thus, and I completely understand what you’re saying. We currently live in a time when if I don’t support the President in his war efforts, die-hard Republicans consider me to be aiding and abetting a terrorist.
I don’t know waht I’m talking about? I think you’re afraid to admit what your party is actually partaking in.
Valerie Plame’s case is currently being investigated (hence the need for Scooter Libby to gain documents from the White House). I’m sure I don’t need to explain the specifics of the case to you. If you don’t understand, you can google it.
Sibel Edmunds is under a gag order (and has been for about three years) when she found wrongdoing while doing her job as a translater translating Farsi for the administration after 9/11. She is not allowed to speak the truth publicly. No, she is not in jail, she’s just under a GAG ORDER!
You are not aware that this administration is only allowing certain members of Congressional committees to be briefed on information even though the law states the entire committee must be present? Well, I guess you’re not very up to date on what’s really going on these days then. Perhaps you should read more about what the other side is uncovering.
Your Water’s Edge description sounds like blind allegiance to me. I know many Republicans who think blind allegiance is a good thing. Do you?
Otto Man
Where would we ever get the idea the administration wanted to silence critics?
Scott Chaffin
Every time I turn on the satellite, there’s Bill Maher clogging up the HBO schedule. Another dissenter silenced, by stuffing wads of cash down his throat.
Looks like Sibel Edmonds’ gag-order case has been heard and rejected by the courts, so it sounds…what’s the word here? Correct? Legal? Necessary? All of them? I don’t know what to tell you to do if you don’t like national-security gag-orders that have been upheld by courts of law (aka, definitely shut up). Elect somebody who can appoint somebody who can remove it? Beats me, anyway, but I’m fine with it if they do review it and decide it’s no longer in the national interest.
Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson have certainly not been silenced. For a while there, you couldn’t get away from Joe. I don’t see any point in rehashing that, but feel free.
Cry me a river, titty baby. Stay away from nutty partisans where ever you might find them if you don’t like those kinds of slurs. Or toughen up a little bit, and hit back with idiotic slurs of your own devising (like, ‘blind allegiance’).
And what does any of the above crap have to do with wiretapping Johnny and Timmy The Brave Bloggers, or senators not talking out of turn (which, I’ve already stipulated that the old “water’s edge” code is practically moot in 2006)?
Tim F.
Funny that you didn’t respond to my post above but chose instead to devolve into an amusing bout of name-calling. Funny and telling. If you had responded you might have acknowledged that these ‘nutty partisans’ whom you seem so eager to dismiss include the president and his advisors.
Let’s move this forward one step at a time. Do you agree that my Bush quote excerpted above applies to me, you and the rest of America? If not I would be very interested to know when the phrase all Americans lost its commonly accepted meaning.
D. Mason
Though I have agreed with several of your posts here tonight I find this one a little bit ridiculous. Maybe you feel that way, I’m not calling you a liar, but the entire democratic party does not feel that way. If you want proof go to Americablog and comment on any semi-popular thread with the words: “I do not approve of homosexuality”. You will without a doubt see lots of people trying to force you to share their values.
Pooh
Well, Tim, you support the terrists, so therefore are not among “all Americans”. You’re already on the list, dontcha know (as am I, clearly) (Bring. It. On.)
Scott Chaffin
Well, I thought I did, Tim, but it looks like I missed a post. Funny and telling, I guess, that I just missed it. Mea maxima culpa. I’ll requote for my own benefit:
I do think it behooves all Americans to do as I said (“water’s edge”, and all) and as the President intimates. But I’ve never said, nor has he, that if you don’t do that, you’re a bad American, a terrorist, or a terrorist supporter. I trust that you, as an American, have the best interests of our country at heart, no matter how much we may disagree about this or that.
But that doesn’t mean that what you say can’t be used by terrorists and terrorist supporters. I think you have to say that’s true and that it’s possible. You have no control over it once it’s digitized, just as Senators (the Rove/Frist side of the argument) have no control of what’s recorded and re-broadcast from C-SPAN (cf, the lady with the sandwich board this week.)
As I’ve said all along, it’s up to you to decide what you’re going to say. Which is another way of saying, no one is telling you what to say, how to say it, and most importantly, not to say it. How you “encourage debate” is purely your choice. If your words are then used to incite jihadism, or to encourage terroristic activities, then you, as the owner of the words, have to live with that. If that possibility bothers you, then don’t digitize them. If you think it’s unlikely, and I do, then keep firing away.
And as I’ve said, but I will repeat, the “water’s edge” argument is weakened by today’s high-speed, high-volume digital networks. I personally would prefer that our Congress abide by it, but they don’t ask me. I prefer that the general public abides by it, and I can get emotional if they don’t, but just like Congress, they don’t ask me, either. And I have to live with it, since it is their right.
Now that we’ve got that out of the way, what’s next?
Asked and answered — that was Frist and Rove you quoted and to whose quotes my remarks were directed, if clumsily via “the water’s edge” reference.
Sorry, but I don’t buy into the “but that they can” argument. We’re in extraordinary times, and they require extraordinary means. As of now, precisely zero Americans that I am aware of have suffered materially from the NSA activities. Yes, I’ll hand them that power, because I see ZERO signs that it will be used in any way outside of what they say it will be used for.
So, anyway — sorry I missed your last post. Shoot me.
Bruce Moomaw
We now have the first two national polls on Feingold’s censure measure. Yesterday American Research Group showed Americans as a whole SUPPORTING it 46-44, and registered voters supporting it 48-43. The same poll showed Americans opposing flat-out impeachment of Bush by only a 7-point margin! Tonight, however, Rasmussen shows Americans as a whole opposing censure 45-38.
So who’s right? ARG has a fairly good accuracy rating, although I’m extremely suspicious (for obvious reasons) of their conclusion that political independents actually support impeaching Bush more than they support censuring him. Rasmussen also has a fairly good record, but seems to have a mild but consistent GOP bias. (If you calibrate Rasmussen’s poll by comparing their daily polls of Bush’s popularity with those of most other pollsters in the last few days, you reach the conclusion that right now the American people are divided virtually evenly on whether they favor Feingold’s censure measure.)
So we DO, at least, seem to have solid evidence that, contrary to the MSM’s regularly repeated wisdom, it is not a political death sentence for Democrats (or, for that matter, Republicans) to vote their actual consciences on this subject — if, of course, they have consciences.
RonB
Dear God in heaven, don’t strike me down for actually agreeing with GOP4Me. I’ll only do it this once, I swear.
Pb
Bruce Moomaw,
The ARG poll results has raised the question–how many Americans really know what ‘censure’ is, anyhow?
RonB,
Interestingly enough, the argument against proposing a specific “right to privacy” amendment is the same as the original one posed against having a Bill of Rights in the first place–that some usurpers in the future might interpret it as a narrow grant of rights instead of the basic but limited enumeration of rights that it is.
Unfortunately, those times are upon us now. Amazingly enough, some of these usurpers would also have you believe that we’d need to pass a “right to vote” amendment as well! Next, no doubt, will be the “right to eat”, which is indeed specifically mentioned nowhere in the Constitution…
RonB
And I agree with jg and Hamilton as well, but since he and Madison kinda lost that battle with the Anti-Federalists, we may as well just live with the Bill Of Rights and change it as often as needed like Jefferson said. Defining “privacy” will be difficult, and perhaps no one wants to go through the flurry of lawsuits arising from its inclusion in the Constitution. But jg is fundamentally correct, GOP, that just because it ain’t in the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s not a right that a person has. I should think we all expect some fundamental right to privacy in a free country. But by all means, why not fiddle with a few words in the Fourth to cover these modern contingencies like electronic surveillance and abortion rights? It would make it much harder to overturn such decisions like Griswold that are based on penumbras. Let’s make it more evident. The court is doing the dirty work that the legislature won’t.
RonB
A thousand apologies for calling abortion rights a modern contingency. Im sure I couldve done that better.
Rome Again
Well, I’ll admit, I spend very little time on AmericaBlog, but, what I hear you saying here is that AmericaBlog is trying to force you to become homosexual yourself? I’m sure that’s pure nonsense.
If you don’t want to be homosexual, no liberal is forcing you to be one, but you don’t have to force them to not be who or what they are either. That was my point.
searp
We need to separate some issues here.
Security is important. There are three aspects:
(1) What are the threats to the country? Is Al Qaeda the only important threat? What is the magnitude of this threat?
There are many external threats, and our policies unevenly address them. Negative effects of our current policy include our mounting debt and the weariness of the armed forces both threaten our longer term security. Al Qaeda is a serious threat, but it is hardly the worst threat we have ever faced. Moreover, in terms of potential it pales in comparison with Russia, China or even Iran and North Korea. Al Qaeda is as serious a threat as one can imagine for an organization of its resources, which are small.
(2) Are the security policies and strategies of this administration effective?
Well, I have posted on this before, but I regard the military strategy as essentially a failure. We are learning once again that Cold Wars of ideology cannot be solved with hot wars in selected locales. Our current strategy may, in fact, be counterproductive, as it serves to isolate us and engender fear not only in our adversaries but in many states that are or ought to be our friends. I’d contrast Bush II with Bush I in this regard.
A second question is whether the military strategy has exacerbated the Al Qaeda threat by serving as a recruiting tool. I simply don’t know. It does seem to me that militant Islam already had plenty of fertile ground in the Middle East. We may have accelerated some aspects of a process that was already in place or legitimized extremism, but our current policies didn’t create the extremism.
(3) Does the nature of the threat justify the thinking of GOP4ME?
Does the perceived threat justifies a thoroughgoing re-work of domestic security policy that includes handing what is essentially a blank check to the President? We have seen extraordinary (!!!) power used wisely (Lincoln) and seen it used very poorly (Japanese internment, WWI hysteria about protestors, Red Scares). There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that institutionalizing extraordinary power in the President is to the benefit of the country. The essentially fallible nature of human beings practically assures that, well, monarchy depends entirely on the quality of the monarch.
That is: there is simply no reason, based on the evidence, to think that an extraordinary concentration of power in the Presidency leads to better decisions on security, quite the opposite. I could go on at length abou modern corporate governance, decision theory, etc. I won’t.
Tim F.
Scott Chaffin,
You need to clarify your point for me. At first it seemed that you scoffed at my quotes because you thought that they were ridiculous, but now it appears that you scoffed because you agree with them that dissent is dangerous. So clarify for me, do you believe that there exists any sort of criticism which could reasonably be construed as ‘supporting the terrorists’? For an extreme example let’s look at International A.N.S.W.E.R. If you read RealClearPolitics then you don’t need me to tell you who they are. Pretty fringe group, at times it seems like they almost want America to lose. One could interpret that to mean that they support America’s enemies. Would you agree?
The next step concerns your apparent confusion over the ethical problem of unrestricted goverment surveillance. Upthread a helpful fellow named GOP4ME laid it out more clearly than you seem willing:
Your quote:
Besides constituting an argument from ignorance, your point could easily be mistaken for GOP4ME’s – no harm, no foul. I sincerely hope that wasn’t what you meant to say.
Finally you toss out the ‘desperate circumstances’ canard:
It continually amazes me how right-wingers can erase the cold war from memory. That was the conflict where America faced down the most dangerous Communist state in the world’s history over the space of fifty years, and won. I suppose that you can try to make the claim that a band of stateless goat herders amount to a greater threat to the Republic than the combined resources of the Soviet Union, but you do so at the cost of your credibility.
Remfin
My guess is ARG asked about censure and Rasmussen asked about “censure for the NSA scandal”
It does reveal Americans know diddly squat about what impeachment or censure actually are
Otto Man
Scott:
The White House:
You keep repeating that “no one” is telling people what to say and what not to say, but it doesn’t make it true.
D. Mason
Well, no, of course I wasn’t saying they would try to force someone who didn’t approve of homosexuality to become homosexual. Also, the people who would try to force them to not be homosexual aren’t what I was speaking of. I’m talking about people who just don’t like it, that’s all. But they deffinately would “shout down” anything that person had to say and generally try to belittle them into accepting homosexuality as a decent way of life. Just for the record, since there are a few such people here. I’m not a person who gives a shit about someones sexuality, but I realise those people do exist and I also realise they have a right to feel however they want as long as they don’t express it through violence, but alot of “liberals” disagree with me about that. That’s my point.
Scott Chaffin
Tim:
Absolutely, I do. I thought I made that clear.
Absolutely, it was, if you go ahead and mistake my point for the other guy’s. But its not my point, and you know it. When there is evidence presented that the NSA wiretaps have materially harmed a US citizen who is not aiding and abetting terrorists, then I will stand up and say I was wrong. When someone can present a non-partisan argument that the NSA wiretaps will absolutely and unavoidably be abused to harm Americans not aiding and abetting terrorists, I will then absolutely reconsider what I am saying and supporting. But I will not reject the NSA wiretaps out of hand because of very vague threats against civil liberties; liberties and rights that have already been transgressed many times in the service of other agendas besides national security. Do I like the transgression of these rights? Of course not. But it’s not a perfect world.
Greenwald’s dabblings and babblings notwithstanding, I do remember the Cold War. I certainly don’t need him or you to give me any history lessons on how it was won. I was 30 years old when the Berlin Wall fell, so I lived through a good chunk of it, and I was fairly conversant and informed in the majority of issues surrounding it (sadly, no blog archives from that time that I can point to and prove that what I’m saying is true.) Hopefully, by now though, you’ve noticed that I am not making the argument that Greenwald is ripping into. The bottom line is this: You don’t appear to believe that Islamic terrorism, that band of goat herders, is a serious threat to our nation. I do, and I’m willing to take the risk that I will be rounded up and sent to a secret prison in Poland because of a router or switch misfire. Because at the end of the day, we’ve lived with that risk for many more years than FISA has been around. And in a lot of ways, I trust the machine intelligence involved here a lot more than I do some random CIA dude. YMMV.
Otto Man:
So, are you telling me that you do everything, follow every dictum, from Washington, DC? I don’t. Do you believe that these people are infallible? I don’t. Do you believe that every statement that drips from their lips for ever and ever shall be obeyed? I don’t. And I voted for them twice. I think the intent of that statement is obvious. But I’m pretty sure that, no matter how you or others might like to frame the intent, it is by no means incumbent on any American to hew to it. It is not a law, it’s merely a statement. I suggest that you’re either very insecure or very ignorant about the power of your own citizenship if you think that the statement you cite somehow is intended to silence you or direct you in what you say. I don’t think either of those are the case, and we’ve amply demonstrated here in 170 comments that this kind of talk hasn’t been restricted. Instead, I think that you’re over-reaching to make a pointless point. And YMMV, too.
Tim F.
Scott Chaffin,
It seems to me taht you don’t grasp the implications of your own argument. For example;
If that is the case then you’ve answered your first post in this thread with little help from me.
Now that you have helped me move my point forward, put two and two together. If the law sets an ambiguous standard of ‘acting in support of’ terrorists groups for unrestricted surveillance, and if you acknowledge that in our current political climate ordinary Americans can easily cross that line, then it seems that we have no basis for disagreement. Under the proposed law there is no reason why the government cannot engage in unrestricted surveillance of its own critics.
Here you make a poor effort at rephrasing my point:
Somebody with less forbearance than myself would call you a dishonest prick for making that sort of accusation. Instead I’ll assume that you can’t tell a comparison from an absolute statement. Let me clarify my point – nobody thinks that terrorism does not constitute a threat to the nation. To think that somebody would is rather insulting. Instead try to answer honestly whether Islamic terrorism constitutes a greater threat the the republic than the combined resources of the Soviet Union. If you seriously want to answer yes then your encyclopaedic grasp of the cold-war era wouldn’t earn you a mail-in Master’s degree.
Finally, the crux of the point:
Funny that at first I thought you were a conservative. Clearly it was my mistake and I apologize for that, rather you fall somewhere on the authoritarian statist end of the spectrum. That’s fine if you’ll acknowledge it.
Pooh
Remfin said
Here are the questions asked,
Rasmussen
ARG’s
Make of that what you will.
Otto Man
No, I don’t follow everything. But when confronted with crystal clear evidence that the White House spokesman said X, I don’t continue insisting that “no one said X” as you do.
I know it’s troubling to be confronted with facts and evidence that don’t jibe with your predetermined worldview, but those are the breaks.
The guy in question had his high-profile network program cancelled. Is he in prison or unemployed? No. But there were clearly consequences from the White House’s efforts to chill dissent, and sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating la-la-la doesn’t change that.
Otto Man
From Keith Olbermann’s Countdown, word of a forthcoming report from U.S. News on just how much contempt the administration has for the Constitution:
I’m curious, Scott, do you support this too? If you think the president doesn’t have to obey the law regarding wiretaps, do you support his right to break into your home and office without showing cause or evidence before a court, even after the fact?
Scott Chaffin
I acknowledged no such thing, Tim. I agreed with this statement of yours: “there exists any sort of criticism which could reasonably be construed as ‘supporting the terrorists’” That seems obvious to me, that it COULD be, not just construed, but actually IS, supporting the terrorists. I’d like to turn it around and ask you, is there NO form of criticism that can be construed as such, and actually BE such?
It’s a wholly different form of threat. Greater or lesser remains to be seen, don’t you think? If not, are you so absolutely sure of your position on this very important question that you can ignore anything and everything from this point going forward? I don’t believe that’s the case. You don’t strike me as someone who can’t change his mind.
That’s your opinion, and if it helps you to be able in some way to talk to me, so be it.
Two other things:
– I made no claim to encyclopedic knowledge of the Cold War. I said that I was conversant and informed on a lot of the issues that surrounded it, and I lived through a lot of it.
– You introduced the phrase “stateless goatherders”, not me. If that’s not the way you think of Islamic terrorism, then don’t use it. I was’t deliberately trying to be insulting, and wouldn’t have guessed you’d take it that way, since it was your phrasing.
Otto Man
The Soviet Union had a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying all life on the planet several times over. I really don’t think al Qaeda can top that, unless they’re working on some supersecret universe-destroying device.
Matt
That’s reasonable.
But then, what’re the chances of such evidence, if it exists, ever being made public? After all, according to most of you who support it, the wiretap program itself should never have been revealed to the public.
I mean, that’s sort of the problem with allowing government to expand the scope of both its powers and its secrecy–a citizen can’t consent to policies they don’t know exist, and likewise can’t know when they’ve been harmed by those policies.
Darrell
OttoM, possession of large quantities of dangerous weaponry is not the only, or even the main variable in determining a threat.. otherwise, France, UK and Israel would be considered ‘grave threats’ to us.
Since you and Tim seem to need it spelled out, the measure of greater or lesser threat depends not just on the amount of weapons possessed, but the WILLINGNESS of the enemy to use them against us. In case you haven’t noticed, Islamofascists don’t tend to be particularly rational in that regards. The Soviets didn’t worship martyrdom like our current enemies. But thanks for reminding us what deep thinkers you folks on the left tend to be.
And Tim, how about some honest acknowledgement that by referring to our enemies as ‘stateless goatherders’ you were in fact minimizing the threat of Islamic terrorism, a tendency seen quite often coming from your side..
Otto Man
You want to talk actual impact? Fine.
Number of Americans killed by communists during the hot battles of the Cold War: 91,000 (33K in Korea, 58K in Vietnam)
Number of Americans killed by “Islamofascists”: 5,208 2891 on 9/11 and now 2317 in the War in Iraq.
I know you’re a deep thinker, Senator Cornyn, so please explain to us how the fact that the Cold War death toll was 33 times higher than the War on Terror signifies that the War on Terror is a greater threat to us than the Cold War?
Even if we just focus on comparable time frames for the early phases of these wars — say, the first five years of each — the Cold War still has an edge in American losses by a margin of more than 6-1.
Please, senator, enlighten us.
Scott Chaffin
Otto:
Jumping Jesus. I did not say that no one said X. I said that no one was telling the American people to STFU with the criticism. I’ll stand by my interpretation, you stand by yours, and we’ll wave at each other across the great divide.
Period, full stop, end of discussion.
The network’s actions were the result of advertisers bailing, not something said by the White House. I defy you to link an article saying that Bill Maher was fired because of statements from the White House. Bill is back in business, doing his schtick for another network. Puffing up about chilling dissent doesn’t change that.
I’m not even going to bother addressing make-believe home-invasion legal woolgathering until I can read the article for myself.
Matt:
Well, the DeWine bill ostensibly under discussion adds another layer of oversight to the process from what I can tell (IANAL). Tim dismisses it. I don’t, at this point in time. It’s my belief that there is an honest attempt in Congress to reconcile the NSA datamining with the public reaction to the minimal revelations to date about the program. But then I’m an authoritarian statist with a predetermined worldview, so be sure to factor that in as you make your own determination.
Otto Man
This has been “awaiting moderation” for some time. Don’t know why, but here’s a repost
Yes, there is a great divide here, and it seems to lie between you and the English language.
What exactly about the sentences—“[T]hey need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.”—doesn’t equal “STFU with the criticism”?
You “defy” me? Lighten up, Francis.
The official word from ABC was that the cancellation of “Politically Incorrect” had nothing to do with his comments, which I’m hoping you’ll agree was B.S. You claim that the advertisers pulled out, and I agree that’s the important factor, but the narrative is clear that the advertisers pulled out after and because of the official stamp of disapproval of the White House.
Entertainment Online:
Clear enough for you? Probably not.
USA Today:
Good enough? No?
CNN:
New York Times:
I gave up after the first three major hits, ignoring lots of articles from sources I’m sure you’d consider suspect. But the causation is implicit here—Maher speaks out, Fleischer hits back, the advertisers run.
Let me put it this way—if Ari Fleischer had taken to the podium of the White House press room and strongly defended Maher’s comments as an example of the very freedoms that made America great, do you think the sponsors would’ve still dropped him? Really?
i’m sure you’ll approach it even-handedly. You’d better start working on your rebuttal to it now, because it’s hitting newsstands soon.
Otto Man
Hmmm. I’ve posted a long response to Scott, twice now.
Both are still “awaiting moderation.” What gives?
Otto Man
Maybe it’s too long. Here it is in parts:
Yes, there is a great divide here, and it seems to lie between you and the English language.
What exactly about the sentences—“[T]hey need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.”—doesn’t equal “STFU with the criticism”?
Otto Man
You “defy” me? Lighten up, Francis.
The official word from ABC was that the cancellation of “Politically Incorrect” had nothing to do with his comments, which I’m hoping you’ll agree was B.S. You claim that the advertisers pulled out, and I agree that’s the important factor, but the narrative is clear that the advertisers pulled out after and because of the official stamp of disapproval of the White House.
Entertainment Online:
Otto Man
USA Today:
Good enough? No?
CNN:
Otto Man
New York Times:
I gave up after the first three major hits, ignoring lots of articles from sources I’m sure you’d consider suspect. But the causation is implicit here—Maher speaks out, Fleischer hits back, the advertisers run.
Let me put it this way—if Ari Fleischer had taken to the podium of the White House press room and strongly defended Maher’s comments as an example of the very freedoms that made America great, do you think the sponsors would’ve still dropped him? Really?
Otto Man
i’m sure you’ll approach it even-handedly. You’d better start working on your rebuttal to it now, because it’s hitting newsstands soon.
Tim F.
Scott and Darrell,
If the term ‘stateless goatherders’ offends you then strike it from the record. You seem to think that the statement minimizes the threat when in fact it does not. In 2001 we learned that a band of unsophisticated agents with no formal state backing can do a considerable amount of damage. Take care reading the most politically-convenient angle into a relatively clear statement.
It absolutely astounds me that conservatives of all people want to downplay the threat from international Communism. Amazing. Folks like our friend GOP4ME are still jumping at Communists under the bed and all of a sudden our friends across the Iron Curtain were no big deal. If I applied the laugh test there’s a decent chance it could kill me.
I suppose that Soviet Russia didn’t scan our media to make hay out of every occasion a critic embarrassed the government. Right? Soviet spies were literally everywhere; the intelligence services were silly with them. No threat there, eh. Weak.
More denial. Communists used weapons against us in several wars of the 20th Century and we nearly reached the end of days over Cuba. You’re still failing the laugh test.
Excellent, I think that we’re getting somewhere. Let’s agree that certain forms of speech could absolutely, 100%, without question serve to support the aims of terrorist groups. Depending on whom you ask, and the administration seems to have an extremely liberal attitude about this, quite a lot of speech in America today supports the terrorists. Great, let’s shake hands and bury that dispute.
Here’s the catch. Under current law you can’t initiate surveillance on the basis of critical speech alone. Under the new law you can. Therefore, and I’m using a logical syllogism here, the law opens the door to warrantless surveillance of Americans based solely on political speech. As I said before, that should resolve the confusion that you expressed in your first post.
Greenwald challenged anybody to show where the bill gives oversight powers to Congress. Al Maviva, a practicing lawyer (as far as I know) did not step up. Will you? I doubt it. Somebody mentioned defunding, which is ridiculous because Bush can simply refund it with an executive order. To think otherwise strikes me as a bit naive.
Policies that we implement today will decide whether Islamic terrorism blossoms into a colossal war of cultures or peters out into a low grade nuisance. You apparently believe that the future has already been written and that radical Islam represents an insatiable, implacably hostile constituency that will never stop trying to destroy this country. One could say that rightwingers root for that in the same way that leftwingers root for defeat in Iraq. It’s an outcome that validates jaundiced preconceptions that people would rather see come true than admit wrong. Maybe it’s just my liberal nature, but I’m a bit more optimistic about the future than that.
Tim F.
Otto Man,
Any new poster or a post with three or more links goes into moderation. It’s part of the spam filter.
Otto Man
Thanks for the info, Tim. I’ll keep that in mind in the future and avoid clogging the site with repeats of the same posts.
MAX HATS
I wonder how many democrats will vote for this one?
Actually, might as well make counting easier: I wonder how many democrats will vote against it.
Can’t dare have an argument on national security issues. Oh dear lord, anything but an argument! In public and everything! And against republicans, oh dear oh dear. I can hear Schumer wringing his hands carry all the way to where I’m sitting. It makes a dry, gravelly sound.
Scott Chaffin
You know, why would I even bother answering, Tim? You’ve got me locked down cold, don’t you? It doesn’t make any sense for me to keep trying to prove my bona fides, if you can pull that out of the question I asked.
Anyway, I’ll go see if I can find a copy of the DeWine bill and read it for myself, since your link in the original post is to a story in the Washington Post that specifically says there is a planned addition of Congressional oversight.
DougJ
Sorry, Moonbats, but Scott is right on here. You assclowns are all locked into a pre-911 mindset. Don’t you know that everything changed after 911? That we learned that oceans cannot protect us? That we cannot afford luxuries like due process and the mythical right to privacy?
Should we even be talking about any of this? What if Al Qaeda is reading this blog? You can bet that they are laughing at us if they are.
Think about it: a group of maniacs is trying to kill us and all we can think to do is argue about how to monitor the very White House that is trying to keep us safe.
Scott Chaffin
Tim:
Section 6 is titled “Regular and Ongoing Oversight by Congress”. Calls for sub-committees to be formed in bouth houses (yay, more committees), with regular and timely reporting, including targets, on NSA datamining activities by the Administration. So it’s there. Sound like a perfect place to lobby your congresscritter to put more teeth in Section 6, if it’s not enough for you.
I’m looking at the bill now, and can’t find anything remotely like that.
RonB
I think Scott has a point, the language in FISA is strikingly similar to the Dewine Amendment, it doesn’t seem to change the targets of surveillance.
I may have found something that might explain this program, though. I’d be interested in seeing what Tim, Scott and others think. I don’t want to waste anyone’s time if I’m off base, but I noticed that the FISA court has been “substantively” modifying a number of proposals since 2003, something unseen in any previous years reports. I’m wondering if this modification, and in a few cases, outright denial is what the administration is circumventing. They were going to FISA, and something was being changed or denied. There’s something that the FISA courts were unwilling to grant in these requests…what was it? Finding out would go a long way in getting to the heart of this.
Tim F.
Scott,
What you’ve described isn’t oversight unless you want to argue that marble statues in the Capitol rotunda exert oversight. After all, they get briefed all day. Show me where either subcommittee has the power to end something that they find objectionable.
From the bill:
As I understand it the old standard held that one caller had to belong to a defined group. Working in support of such a group can mean any of dozens of things. Why don’t you think that criticizing the president qualifies? The president thinks so. You’ve already acknowledged that speech can be construed as supporting terrorists. It’s extremely poor jurisprudence to leave a gaping hole in a law because you think that the government has the good faith not to use it.
This brings up why I made an ado about you not being a conservative. You’ve stated elsewhere that you’ve largely dropped out of politics, and I don’t think that you appreciate the consequences of policies that you support. For example you took exception to being labeled a statist. Why? A conservative would never give the government the benefit-of-the-doubt when it comes to unrestricted surveillance; recall how freepi spent most of the Clinton practically in hysterics over the issue. And yet you glibly dismiss the question when it’s Bush doing the surveillance. The claim that 9/11-changed-everything, including your political convictions, smells of partisan opportunism. Why then? We were attacked by terrorists during Clinton’s term and the rest of the world has put up with regular terrorist violence for decades. Government commissions predicted well in advance that existing groups would try that sort of attack eventually, in fact it was a well-enough known weakness that Tom Clancy wrote it into one of his books, and yet you discover your love of authoritarian government when Republicans hold the White House and Congress. Psychological trauma is well and good as a short-term excuse but eventually it sounds about as convincing as Cindy Sheehan’s grief.
So why do I think that rightwingers root for a consuming war of civilizations. I don’t need to show how the bulk of the conservative commentariat relishes the thought, but you? The question of whether I’ll write off all actions in the future makes little sense otherwise. The future hasn’t been written yet. If the president has a good policy for fighting terror then it’ll abate and in ten years we’ll be worrying about shark bites and missing white women again. If his policy sucks then we’ll be embroiled in endless war and it’ll be at least partly his fault. The degree of the threat is responsive to how well one manages it.
None of that is to say that you’re a bad person, you’re obviously not. But you will understand if I express my skepticism that so many conservatives discover a love for creeping authoritarianism only when their party holds authority.
Scott Chaffin
1) How does any Congressional oversight committee end anything? I dunno. Asking a serious question here. What does a Congressional committee do to stop something they don’t like, if it’s happening in the Dept. of Agriculture?
2) Section 2a2, all at once, directly from the pdf:
The list is still there. Sorry, I just don’t see the gaping hole, Tim. And again, since the bill hasn’t passed, there’s still time to lobby your Congressman to refine it if you feel it’s not complete.
3) I haven’t dropped out of politics, if I was ever in it, I just don’t discuss it much on my own blog. And I don’t necessarily take exception to being labeled a statist anymore than I take exception to being labeled anything, since a label is in the mind of the labeller. I know what I believe, and what someone else thinks of that isn’t much concern to me, and most of the time I just grin. I’m not a Freeper or a right-winger. I’m not even a dues-paying Republican. That’s one reason I’ve pursued this for three days now with you specifically. I’m trying to understand what a faction of our polity has against something that seems blindingly obvious to me. If anything, you seem like a reasonable person that I could have the conversation with, Bill Maher’s woes notwithstanding.
4) OK, you brought up Clinton first, not me. Let’s remember that. If it had come to light that President Clinton had been contravening FISA in order to shellack Islamic terrorism, I can only assure you here today that I wouldn’t have blinked an eye since I don’t have any blog archives from those halcyon days. In my non-encyclopedic auto-didactic ways, I had followed the growth of Islamic terrorism since the embassy bombings and Khobar tower bombings, and mainly just ranted about it from the top of a barstool. Would that I’d had a blog. The bottom line is that I don’t consider the tracking and attacking of enemies of America to be an ‘autoritarian problem’, and these folks had pretty much self-identified themselves as such many times. So — please — let’s not get into the Clinton wars. I wasn’t in the trenches then, and don’t want to get into them now, so long after the fact. Hopefully, you can take my word that if it were President Gore asking for my understanding on FISA contravention, I would be equally supportive.
E)
You misunderstand me, and I failed at being clear. I’m not willing to say right now today that Islamic terrorism is a bigger threat or a lesser threat than Soviet-style communism. I’m not putting a stake in a ground and defending it from here on out, and I don’t expect any thinking man to do so. You are correct that our actions today will determine how that falls. And that’s why I want our policies to be as dynamic as possible until the threat has receded. Which is why I would grant these ‘gaping loopholes’ to our President to defend our nation, if he is able to make the case that they are necessary to this Congressional oversight committee and a court of judges. Particularly since it is sunsetted, in the Dewine bill, five years hence. For me, personally, sunsetting is indicative of good law that comes to fruition during wartime, but that’s a personal preference and a minor point, probably.
Tim F.
FISA requires a court order for surveillance involving a US person and that court order is only approved if one party to the conversation is a known or suspected agent of a foreign power. The new law does not require a court order and valid targets have been expanded to include people working in support of a targeted group.
The hole that you can’t see concerns what exactly it means to work “in support of” a targeted group. You’ve helpfully acknowledged that speech can reasonably be construed as supporting terrorists, which means that we should be in agreement that the new law allows the unsupervised monitoring of Americans on the basis of speech alone. If you don’t find that a repulsive expansion of government power then I’m genuinely shocked.
My Senators are Santorum and Specter. Lobby yours if you think it will do any good.
Tim F.
I think that you get my point. Under FISA law a judge can deny an application and promptly end surveillance. Under the DeWine law the subcommittee can do…what? Nothing. They cannot evaluate cases individually but rather the program in aggregate, which they can either approve or make a meaningless gesture of disapproval. Let me know if you seriously think that this is not a significant change.
Tim F.
RonB,
Replied at your blog.
Scott Chaffin
I guess I do. I can count on your support, then, against all such encroachments on all civil liberties. And hopefully even, the rollback of existing federal encroachments and closing a lot of loopholes, maybe?