America... Spying on Americans

Similar fears are voiced by Bruce Fein, a former associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan. Fein is very much a member of the right. He once published a column arguing that "President George W. Bush should pack the United States Supreme Court with philosophical clones of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and defeated nominee Robert H. Bork."

Suddenly, though, Fein is talking about Bush as a threat to America. "President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law," he wrote in the right-wing Washington Times on Dec. 20. "He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms."

What alarms Fein is not only that Bush has broken laws but also that he has repeatedly shown contempt for the separation of powers. Fein wants to see congressional hearings that would explore whether Bush accepts any constitutional limitation on his own authority.

"The most important thing to me, in terms of thinking about the issue of impeachment, is to recognize that the Constitution does place a value on continuity," Fein says. "We don't want to have a situation where you make a single error, and you're exposed to an impeachment proceeding."

Fein says Congress should probe Bush on whether he plans to keep "skating the edge" of federal law by trying to concentrate power in the executive branch. "That's the key. It's that probing that's essential to knowing whether we're dealing with somebody who's really a dangerous guy. If he maintains this disregard or contempt for the coordinate branches of government, it's that conception of an omnipotent presidency that makes the occupant a dangerous person. We just can't sacrifice our liberties for ourselves and our posterity by permitting someone who thinks the state is him, and nobody else, to continue in office."

But, Finn, it appears that the left does not really understand the threat and the horrendous loss of life and damage that would occur if a nuclear device were to be exploded in one of our cities.

They are fond of quoting( I am sure you have noticed) Benjamin Franklin's admonition which says that "Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY deserve neither liberty nor safety" are not aware that a "little temporary safety" does not equate with a nuclear device.

Ultimately it may not be worth it, but that is dependent upon unknown
future acts:

1) Future 9/11's
2) Future abuse of executive powers

I would suggest that unless # 2 involves the wholesale imprisonment of people who have registered as Democrats, #1 will have a far greater impact on the will of Americans.

I would further suggest that if civil libertarians took a broader and longer term view, they might come to the conclusion that to best safeguard what they hold so precious, they should be giving the Administration some latitude in making minor encroachments on civil liberties. If and when another 9/11 (or worse) happens, the government will, likely, assume even more authoritative powers, and the public will bless them for it.

That's a good mantra Drewdad. Your mom teach you that?

You must sacrifice all for the State! The State is your mother and father. The State will decide what is best for you....

I think Kuvasz has read "1984". I have read it also. Several times.

The left often uses "1984" to refer to the evil Capitialist society in which the poor are ground under the feet of the plutocrats.

Quite a red herring with that remark. The "Left" (and what is that but anyone who opposes the radicalism of neo-conservatives anyway) does not reference the excesses of capitalism to the State of Oceania. It references Oceania to the control of society by the State. As in "1984," where an elite cadre of ideologues control the State of Oceania to their personal benefit without regard to the masses, a similar case is made by the far Left that a small wealthy group of capitalists controls the mechanism and direction of State here, again, to their personal benefit without regard to the masses.

It is the use of the power of the State by an elite group to control its citizens, regardless of the economic structure of the society that is the connection.

They are quite mistaken. Those who have read "1984" carefully know that Eric A. Blair, aka George Orwell was writing about Oceania as a SOCIALIST STATE.

um yeah, Ingsoc was plainly displayed on the pix I posted. your point was I did not know that, but posted it anyway?

Indeed, in the appendix to the novel, Orwell writes:

"Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of INGSOC or ENGLISH SOCIALISM.

Parallels that the left attempts fall flat when one notes that the villan described by the rulers of Oceania is named Goldstein--obviously a Jewish target. This Anti-Semitism may indeed be endemic to Nazi Germany but it does not exist in today's USA.

Orwell's reference point was Trotsky (a Jew) and his breaking with his past co-revolutionary colleague, Stalin (Big Brother). Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War, and knew first hand the internicene battles fought on the Left and the destruction of the leftist POUM by Stalinist forces who were more eager to destoy their fellow leftists than Franco's Rightist forces.

The left is adept at complaining about the attempt of the right to impose its Judeo-Christian traditions on the rest of the country. Even a superficial reading of "1984" shows that the leaders of Oceania are completely secular and leave no room for God.

They left no room for sex either, so what was your point again?

The adolescent attempts at making a comparison between "1984" and the present day USA are ridiculous to anyone but high school sophomores

The use of surveillance, inducing thru propaganda a fearful response to terrorism, and of perpetual warfare to trick a population into ignoring the abrogation of its rights are what connect Orwell's Oceania to the US.

Finn,
I am well versed in risk management.

Risk - terrorism
Possible solution - survellience with warrant
Possible solution - survellience without warrant
Possible and PRESENT solution - survellience of NON US persons without warrant, require warrant for US persons.

Quantify the difference in mitigating the risk between requiring a warrant and not requiring it.

I cannot, I have already acknowledged that I cannot, and I don't think anyone outside of the Administration can. In my original post I speculated on the difference, but concluded that it is a question of whether one trusts the Administration. Clearly, you do not.

72 hours of survellience allowed before warrant must be aquired. Speed is NOT an issue between the 2. Both allow for immediate survellience

Possible risks of survellience without a warrant -
Abuse of power, unable to use aquired information to prosecute, undermines the constitution and our way of life.

Agreed on the first two. The third is just rhetoric.

Please quantify how survellience without a warrant is justified or beneficial. Give specifics, not scare tactics. Terrorism is scarey but there is no evidence that suggests warrantless survellience will provide anything beyond what warranted survellience will.

I am not employing scare tactics, as I am not trying to scare anyone, and this is the second time you asked this question. I've already answered it. If my answer is not to your satisfaction, and it reinforces your position, so be it.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Ultimately it may not be worth it, but that is dependent upon unknown
future acts:

1) Future 9/11's
2) Future abuse of executive powers

I would suggest that unless # 2 involves the wholesale imprisonment of people who have registered as Democrats, #1 will have a far greater impact on the will of Americans.

I would further suggest that if civil libertarians took a broader and longer term view, they might come to the conclusion that to best safeguard what they hold so precious, they should be giving the Administration some latitude in making minor encroachments on civil liberties. If and when another 9/11 (or worse) happens, the government will, likely, assume even more authoritative powers, and the public will bless them for it.

I read this a couple of times and finally figured out what bothers me about it. First, it would seem we've already given the president a lot of latitude in making arguably not minor encroachments on civil liberties. He was given the patriot act which allowed collaboration between law enforcement and military intelligence. He was given more time to get emergency warrants through FISA. He was given the sole power to determine whether or not a US citizen could be detained indefinitely without charges. He believes he has the right to order torture for certain detainees of his choosing.

To accept that the current choice is one between civil liberties and preservation of the state is to accept that giving up civil liberties -- more than what has already been given -- is required to prevent future terrorist attacks, that we have to give up one to gain the other. I don't accept this. It isn't at all clear that the powers that the president has taken for himself, far beyond what an already generous congress has given him, is necessary to prevent future 9/11s. If I say that civil liberties are more important than this new power, are future 9/11s really on my head? No, I don't think so. The government has several tools at its disposal to fight terrorism. In my opinion, they are adequate.

Did you support extension of the Patriot Act as it read, or did you favor pulling back on some of its provisions?

Parados is being ridiculous. We would never look at the conversation of every American. Parados is, I am afraid, a political partisan who would attack the Bush Administration at every opportunity. Parados gives no evidence. Only his opinion. Well, I am certain that evidence shows that if Bill Clinton would have been more watchful we might not have had 3,000 citizens killed in the WTC.

Now, I will give evidence. Please do not dissemble, Parados--Address the evidence--

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/21/terror/main607659.shtml

quote:

Six years before the sept. 11 attacks, the CIA warned in a classified report that Islamic extremists likely would strike on US soil at landmarks in Washington or New York, or through the airline industry, according to airline officials.

end of quote

Is this report false? If so, prove it, Parados.

Notice the specificity--"Islamic extremists"

"Strike on US soil" "landmarks in Washington or New York" "through the airline industry"


Bill Clinton did, I hope, read the CIA reports, or he may have forgotten because he was so busy being fellated by Monica.

That was when a few well placed wire taps might have averted the WTC tragedy, Parados, but partisans like you will never admit the possibility.

Take note: The Patriot Act will be passed-Thank God!