Mercury News – Sat, Dec. 24, 2005:
Like many Americans, the Rev. Dan Hutt of Palo Alto was prepared to sacrifice some freedom for more safety in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Hutt didn’t object — back then.
But more than four years after the attacks, many Americans appear less willing to give up their civil liberties in the search for terrorists.
I hope this story is true, because it’s about time. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be serious about stopping terrorism. But if losing our freedoms is the only way to stop terrorism, we might as well let them win.
“The good thing about this country is it’s not a police state. What’s been done here recently is very, very similar to what has been done in Iran.”
My thoughts exactly.
Hmmmm, and just what civil liberties have you been “forced” to give up. Exactly how has your privacy been invaded?
Comparing the United States with Iran is a bit of a stretch.
Iran is more like Iraq and I doubt we can change that. It’s wishful thinking.
Tis the season for wishful thinking, fa la la la.
Senes, oh I’m sorry. I forgot. I should enjoy the fact that our idiot in chief has tossed the Constitution in the trash and spied on us. I should love to see little old ladies harassed by airport security. And why should I be upset that my idiot in chief supported torture?! It’s not like I was ever tortured… yet. God bless America!
I’m wondering if this whole spy story is part of some kind of elaborate hoax. First there is the issue of leaked documents. Then there is the New York Times, which may do some spying of its own. If you fly on a commercial jet, you give up privacy for transportation. That’s not spying.
If you are calling or emailing people internationally that might be something being looked at. This message may be spied by somebody, which doesn’t upset me. People are all worked up about privacy but they will use a cell phone which offers little to no privacy. Wifi seems totally open to spying, but people go nuts over the fact that they will get free wifi.
I have a totally secure document here. The corporations may be doing more spying than the NSA and nobody is bitching about that as loud as the Bush supposedly spying. Company X has a right to spy on you in the interest of developing some junk mail, newspaper story or computer program. It seems kind of warped that the NSA is a security threat and the New York Times is this do no wrong gang of good guys and gals. What if parts of the NYT story turn out to be BS? It’s not like that hasn’t happened before. I guess you need TimeSelect or something to get the whole story. Maybe TimeSelect is a gag or something. They have gagged some of their own writers behind a pay wall. It’s like a Berlin wall for journalism. With TimeSelect the journos are going covert and undercover to sell the story. The papers used to sell the ads and let the stories run on their own steam.
Will the constitutional limit of 2 prezidential terms be ignored in 2008? Will there be an election if a national crisis occurs near election time? Will the opposition be intimidated by national security investigations? Is the Republic strong or fragile?
Here’s the original THIRD TERM POST from DU: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2233
I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. Quite frankly I don’t give a damn.
Bush planning a third term? Planning doesn’t seem to be his strong suit.
Look at the situation in Iraq. If that isn’t proof, I don’t know what is. You guys give him too much credit and don’t want him to have any credit all at the same time.
Please, what freedom have YOU actually lost. You can still whine at will.
Ahhh.. the moan of the indifferent “conservative”: If it hasn’t happened to me then it hasn’t happened.
Strangely enough principles are the point here. I’m not even American – yet I can see and comment on the lost liberties and freedoms – mostly in the realms of dessent and freedom of expression. The Patriot Act is mostly one giant limitation of civil liberties.
The detractors to this point out the Clinton may have had the same policies. Maybe. However that doesn’t make them right either. Too many of the current US administrations supporters try to make this Clinton vs Bush. Its not. But I can see why they do: its an easy straw man argument.
Bottom line: Comparing the US to Iran is over the top, but the intent of the point is valid.
Paul — you missed a bit about what Clinton did — not that I give a rat’s ass about Clinton. His administration DID follow established legal procedures when they turned their domestic spying over to the FBI. Does it still suck. Yes.
Frankly, given how obedient most judges are, Bush could have utilized the FISA regulations and done exactly what he did. I can only presume that part of the ideology predominant among his handlers — wanted to move that portion of checks and balances out the back door. That’s scarier than the spying.
Like Tal added later, Pastor Niemoller got it right. I just happen to be in one of the early waves. You get it in the neck, later.
Paul T
I’m sorry to blow your little bubble, but Clinton DID NOT allow or endorse warrantless searches. A report appeared in the Drudge Report claiming that both Clinton and Carter approved warrantless searches. Unfortunately, Drudge left out some critical text. I copied this from Media Matters.com,
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002
claim:
“Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order.”
But what Clinton actually signed was this:
“Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.”
Notice the line “certifications required by that section.” What does the section actually say? “there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person”.
claimed:
“Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”
But let’s take a look at the actual Executive Order:
“1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.”
Ok, but what is the Section that is being referenced in this Executive order?
“there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party”.
Of course the real reason for singling out Clinton and Carter is to embarrass them Democrats. Funny how they don’t want to mention the precedents under Bush Sr. (who failed to remove Saddam), Reagan (the saint of neo-cons who sunk trillions into defense but pulled out of Lebanon while selling arms to our enemy, Iran), Ford (a bumbler) or (gasp) Nixon!
And btw, there are plenty of people that don’t care what the government is doing. That’s how Hitler was able to gain power.
Paul T
Anyone may gather information about another. Unless the gathering is an obvious theft then there is very little that may be done. Have you ever wondered how all those data collection agencies got all that information on you? The Constitution grants us protection from the Government. Laws give us protection from civilians. And in personal data, your rights are worth about as much as used toilet paper under current laws.
Tal
Thank you for posting Martin Niemoller poem. Maybe this poem should be inserted into every oath of office.
“None of your civil liberties matter much,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said last week, “after you’re dead.”
Yikes, whatever happened to “Give me Liberty or give me death”? Patrick Henry must be spinning in his grave. We the complacent, governed by cowards.
They also forget: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Whether really written by Benjamin Franklin or Richard Jackson matters not as long as it is right.
>>please explain how this might differ from precisely what the
>>government engaged in, also for a good cause – stopping
>>terrorists.
When the NYT can arrest me, audit my tax returns, or lock me up in Gitmo indefinitely without charging me or giving me access to a lawyer, I will begin to worry about them in the same way I worry about Dumbya’s Secret State Police illegally spying on me and other American citizens.
And this notion that anyone who is against Dumbya’s illegal spying is “soft on terrorism”, or even against spying, seems to be put forth by individuals who are either terminally simpleminded or dishonest. There is already in place a perfectly legal means (FISA court) to spy on anyone who needs watching; all the watchers need is a halfway plausible reason for wanting to spy. And for the impatient, the spying can be initiated immediately, the warrant being justified after the fact.
I’m still waiting for some evidence that this wholesale trammeling of our civil liberties has led to ANY useful information in the war on terror … with the exception of the Brooklyin Bridge Plotter (who was ALREADY being LEGALLY spied upon by the FBI, and who was well known to any national security types who were interested), I haven’t seen any evidence that ANY of the subjects of this illegal spying were threats to national security. And certainly not the sort of threat that would justify circumventing the FISA court system (and the Constitution) in yet another effort to further tilt the balance of power in favor of the Executive Branch at the expense of Americans’ civil liberties.
I was against the Patriot Act FROM THE VERY FIRST SECOND I heard of it.
I lived in California where ballot propositions are always named EXACTLY OPPOSITE of what they are. The more shameless the name, the bigger the scam.
So, a proposition entitled, “Freedom for Fresh Air for Children Act.” is surely sponsored by tobacco or an industrial polluters’ lobby. You almost don’t have to read the booklet they give you: just vote against all the shamelessly titled propositions.
So, as soon as I heard the title “Patriot Act” I knew It was a ploy. And I’ve been proven right, haven’t I?
The New York Times is all screwed up. Just face it, the NSA isn’t a security threat. We had bad intelligence and now the story is that they are gathering too much intelligence. The UN is a far bigger security problem than anything Bush and company could think up.
I spy with Google.
Googling UN, I got this.
Results 1 – 10 of about 666,000,000.
Googling Bush-Results 1 – 10 of about 281,000,000.
Results 1 – 10 of about 13,400,000 for nsa.
Results 1 – 10 of about 330,000,000 for new york times.
Bingo. The UN is satanic according to my Googling.
UNITED NATIONS — “In a secret and secure location, a set of computers holds the hundreds of thousands of files that document how companies and individuals from some 40 countries exploited the U.N. oil-for-food program in league with Saddam Hussein. Yet nearly two months after the $35 million U.N.-backed probe that collected all those documents exposed just how troubled the program was, there has been no rush by the authorities in question to study it.”
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Oil_for_Food_Fallout.html
There’s a backlog or something. I guess you have information overload, so collecting more information doesn’t mean you get more security. They have leaked documents but there isn’t time to investigate the hundreds of thousands of files. The Iraqis want their oil back. The UN is having a wine and cheese party in New York City.
It’s like an international political mafia. Get everybody all worked up about the NSA. Call me foolish, but I tend to trust the NSA more than the power brokers in New York City. The NSA isn’t dumb. The UN appears to be both deaf, dumb and corrupt. That’s who strips you of your rights as an American citizen in the name of global government.
Bitch about the UN for awhile, it needs bitched about. The New York Times won’t do it. There’s more money in bitching about Bush, writing books, editorials and articles. There’s more concern with Bush than there is with terrorism. Bush isn’t going to blow up your office building. He may send in the FBI, but you better be a big threat.
The UN operates more on a bribe and a threat basis.
What people that are supporting this steady erosion of personal rights are too short-sighted to realize is that this is just the beginning of massive government oversight and control. All we need is one more terrorist attack, no matter how minor, and the US will become the police state that we so hated during the cold war.
If things continue the way that they are going, it will become officially illegal to be critical of the government and national policies, membership in any political party that is not in line with the official positions will be reason for disqualification for government employment, private discussions will be a thing of the past. This is exactly what we hated and fought so strongly against for the last 50 years, yet it is all being undone right before our eyes in the name of ‘national security’.
The republican party membership does not see what is actually happening right before their eyes: a power grab that will lead to a society modeled on Soviet standards of power, where we must behave the way the government tells us to or suffer the consequences.
We have a government that actively promotes legalized torture, unsupervised spying on citizens, exclusion of non-supporters from government processes, lack of accountability by supporters of the regime.
Supporters of the current US government and it’s abuses, in my eyes, are nothing but traitors to American standards and ideals. Yes, I said it.. you are traitors… and you will be seen as such in the long run by history, just as supporters of Stalin and his policies are seen today in the Soviet union.
War is easier than peace. Anybody can pick up a gun and start shooting people. Peace requires hard work, which is why governments usually take the war route. Government employees aren’t always the hardest workers out there. They don’t care who gets enslaved by the war. They want to collect a paycheck and a pension, public be damned. That’s not to say there aren’t some very hard working government employees out there. The soviet culture of govenment collapsed under the weight of more and more government. It’s not that there are a tremendous number of traitors in the United States that’s the danger. The danger is the worthless hacks at FEMA or some other agency who are clueless. I’ve seen this sort of thing with the FAA and then you get 911 attacks, which makes it cover you ass time. You can’t fire some of these people because the unions have a protection racket inside the government. If they pay their union dues they have a job for life. The politician has to run an expensive race to keep the job. The union runs a kind of shadow government funded by the people. They are like termites in a building.
That’s why people vote Republican in large numbers. The Dems just keep kissing ass and losing elections. Government is a big industry. We make jobs for people who make nothing. Private industry shrinks and government grows. It’s a zero sum situation. The product is corruption, war and death all in the name of security. If you want justice work for peace. If you want war work for the thugs.
I think corporate America has instituted more of a “police state” on individual liberties more than the government but of course, it takes government permission for them to do it.
Also, it’s usually only a paranoid government that feels the need to restrict freedoms and violate civil rights so when that becomes even remotely prevalent, you better start complaining before you’re the only one left or willing to speak on your behalf.
paul t.
“hey pat, i’ve never heard of the drudge report stuff on clinton/carter. however, you clearly aren’t reading carefully. what part of “without a court order” do you not understand? “
The notion that Clinton and Carter both authorized warrant less spying originated at Drudge. The neocon media picked up on it and posted it all over. Again, it is another bullshit piece by the neocons to alibi their hero, dubya.
As for “no substantial likelihood” means exactly that. If it appears that an American or American jurisdiction becomes involved, a warrant is required. If it appears that only foreign people and places are involved then a warrant is not required. If it appears that only foreign people and places are involved BUT later an American or American jurisdiction becomes involved then a warrant would be required under FISA.
Apparently all legal scholars are having a hard time accepting that Bush does have the inherent right to possess unfettered powers, even in wartime or spy on Americans without a warrant. I haven’t seen any that support dubya except for Yoo, who wrote the memo giving the President the power and Attorney General Gonzalas. The FISA Court has asked for a briefing on this and apparently one Judge even stepped down because of it.
I keep hearing this thing about “wartime presidential powers”. Wasn’t the ‘Mission Accomplished’?
When do the wartime powers stop? What is victory? In other words, at what point can the president stop using the war justification for all of his actions?
I really want to know… when will the war be declared over?
The only way to choke the war in Iraq is through the budget process.
Then the McCains, Clintons and those sort of highfalutin senatorial people get busy warning everybody that the troops are not going to have supplies, socks or support. They issue press releases about how they support the Troops and then when things go wrong they blame it all on Bush. The blame Bush angle is clever. Not that Bush hasn’t screwed up but there is enough blame to go around. The war in Iraq is bi-partisan which means both parties support it. It will be over when we win, what ever that means. I guess when the Iraqis all praise George W. along side Allah that will be victory. It could last for 30 years and be decided by future generations. Hopefully they will be wiser than these idiotic baby boomers now running the world as hell. They’ll still be paying off the war in 30 years. That’s the bad news. The good news is that the baby boomers will be dead. Most of them.
>The notion that Clinton and Carter both authorized warrant less spying >originated at Drudge.
Jamie Gorelick testified to Congress that the President has the inherent authority to engage in such activities for purposes of gathering intelligence or making policy. Not the Attorney General, but the President as part of his war making powers. Every president has made this same claim, essentially that the FISA law is not necessary.
# 32; Devorak Reader. What the hell kind of deal is that? I’m a baby boomer, I’ve worked for a living all my life, paid in a hell of a lot of social security taxes only to be told that as a baby boomer I’m somehow stressing the whole system. As far as “the idiotic baby boomers that are running things” drivel is concerned, well, hell, somebody has to run things. Why don’t you give it a try? Stand for public office, volunteer for something that’ll give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, or walk up and down the street with some kind of retarded sign.
Yeah, I’m a baby boomer and an American white male of european descent and we regularly get blamed for everything. I think it’s nice to be having such an effect on the world.
What most people don’t realize is that this is just the first step twoards a dictatorship. Hitler used an excuse similar to this to get his power in Germany after the Reichstag fire. His was a fear of the communists, Bush’s is a fear of Islamic militants. How long is it before the American people are called upon to report each other for words that could possibly be slanted against the government? Bush may not start a new Holocaust, but the President has more power than anyone in American history. How long before we give that office complete control…to supposedly “fight terrorism”?