Bush v Civil Liberties?

[tickledgirl]

Yeah yeah yeah, dems and liberals always claim Bush is attacking civil liberties. Listen to this group of moonbats who are raving about pushing legislation "to restore congressional oversight and habeas corpus, end torture and extraordinary rendition, narrow the President's authority to designate 'enemy combatants,' prevent unconstitutional wiretaps, email and mail openings, protect journalists from prosecution under the Espionage Act, and more."

Typical liberals? Not really. This is the American Freedom Agenda being launched tomorrow by:


Bob Barr, (former congressman R-GA) one of the leaders in impeaching Clinton)
David Keene (American Conservative Union)
Richard Viguerie (conservative direct mail guru)
Bruce Fein (conservative legal scholar and associate attorney general under Reagan)

I read about this on the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melinda-henneberger/prominent-conservatives-l_b_43859.html) but there's a piece about it in the very conservative Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070319-124827-8424r.htm) as well.

It's not just dems sniping at the opposition. These guys really have gone unchecked for too long. They've used the War on Terror to attack bedrock principles of our government. If you're not worried that they should be stopped, worry about having a Democratic president with his or her hands on power these guys have grabbed.

[Strider]

Many conservatives (Grover Norquist, eg) have been against the increase in government powers from the beginning.

[WorkInProgress]

I think a lot of conservatives, and increasingly so as time goes on, recognize Bush for what he is, a stark raving maniac who has total contempt for any law and any lawful institution that threatens to get in the way of his absolute power. The gauntlet he's thrown down to the Democrats in Congress over subpoenaing officials from his administration is the latest case in point: he's telling them they'll face a constitutional showdown if they don't accept his terms and back off. Excuse me? BRING ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL SHOWDOWN! Bush may want to reflect on the fact that, back in the 1968 election, Richard Nixon promised to appoint law-and-order justices to the Court. He did. He appointed Warren Burger as chief justice. And guess what? One of Burger's law-and-order rulings was U.S. v. Nixon (1974): the president is not above the law. Bush may want to consider how confident he is that a constitutional showdown will come out in his favor. Sure, they installed him in office in the judicial coup of 2000, but he may well be pushing his luck now, even with them. In any case, I want to see the constitutional showdown, because the more Bush talks, the more people see him for what he is--including some of the ones who voted for him.

[Redmage]

We'll see just how hard they fight. Congress is currently considering repealing Bush's right to appoint federal prosecutors without oversight. But they need to just dump the entire Patriot Act. I think the recent scandals at the Justice Department show that the Executive Branch simply can't be trusted with that much power.

[WorkInProgress]

Funny thing is, I'm actually willing to give the executive branch a little latitude when it comes to spying to catch terrorists. It's everything else he does that enrages me.

[Mastertank1]

I believe he wrote this in his novel "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", someone please correct me if I'm wrong:

"The most important criterion to consider before passing a law to expand the powers of any democratic government is this; if this law were on the books when your worst political enemy was voted into power, could you still live with it?
If the answer to that question is no, DO NOT PASS THAT LAW."

I think that may be the single wisest statement regarding government I've ever read.

[Redmage]

I've been watching the federal prosecutor scandal, and just shaking my head.

First, the Justice Department told Congress, under oath, that there had been no White House involvement in the decision to fire those prosecutors. Then email records started surfacing, the DoJ and the White House said, "Oopsie. I guess Harriet Myers was involved in there somewhere." More emails come out, implicating Karl Rove, and Bush himself said he "might have mentioned something" to Alberto Gonzales about complaints he'd been hearing about this prosecutor or that, but he certainly never suggested firing any of them.

Next were the explanations about WHY they were fired. First it was poor performance. Then Congress obtained DoJ records showing that all of the fired prosecutors had good performance records, consistently positive job reviews. So the performance explanation went away and the reason of the day was "policy." But the records didn't support that either, so now the explanation is "We thought we could find better people."

Anyone see a pattern here? The stories keep changing as new evidence makes the old ones unsupportable. And each new story is more vague than the last one. Tony Snow has said "memories are hazy" at the White House about just how this happened and who was involved.

Yeah, I'll bet they're hazy. These people shouldn't have to rely on MEMORY for this information. There should be meeting minutes, memos, emails, letters - actual physical records documenting the process. And the fact that 6 of the 8 fired were working on corruption cases involving Republicans or major GOP donors? Sheer coincidence, of course. Pointing out that a 7th was removed so a Rove crony could be given that job is "just playing politics."

But my God, the absolute best moment was listening to Bush telling Congress that he would let his aides speak, but only in closed-door sessions, with no record at all (not even a transcriptionist) and never, under any circumstances, under oath.

They might have to tell the truth under oath, you know. And it makes it harder for the story to change, as we've seen it's prone to do. Not that Bush has anything to hide of course. He's being completely up front about this, no matter what he said before.

This is becoming a farce.

[natural tickler]

Redmage, the whole Bush Administration is a farce

that last sentence of yours spoke volumes, and just confirmed what I thought 7 years ago. When Bush was elected, this country is doomed

[tickledgirl]

And the fact that 6 of the 8 fired were working on corruption cases involving Republicans or major GOP donors? Sheer coincidence, of course. Pointing out that a 7th was removed so a Rove crony could be given that job is "just playing politics."

Actually a number of them weren't canned because they were targetting Republicans. They were canned for refusing to target Democrats. Which is actually worse, in my view. Covering up corruption is bad enough. But Republicans used law enforcement to attack their political enemies. Tell me again how we're not becoming a police state?

[killemall]

isn't this considered an oxymoron. 2 words that have the exact opposite meaning. bush who is a hardcore fascist anticonstitutionalist and civil liberties.
sure sounds like an oxymoron, or just maybe a moron in general.

[areenactor]

i for one am willing to let the goverment tap the phone calls of known terroist phone#'s. what's wrong with that?
fbi files? oh please, can any of you really think of any president that didn't use them?
look up history. no really! check out the "civil liberties abuses" that took place during the civil war; ww1; ww2. it makes todays efforts look like nothing in comparison.
if it helps stave off further tragidies on our home soil i'm for it.

[tickledgirl]

i for one am willing to let the goverment tap the phone calls of known terroist phone#'s. what's wrong with that?Oh please. Can you deviate from RNC talking points even a little bit? I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to tap known terrorists. Certainly none of the guys listed in the original post are saying that. But how about people who might be terrorists? How about people who aren't terrorists, but we'd like to check them out anyway? What should we do about them? Well, back in 2004 we were told:
...any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. But as it turned out, that was complete BS. The NSA was listening in. Not just on terrorists, but on anyone they chose. And warrants? Hah, we don't need no stinking warrants...

no really! check out the "civil liberties abuses" that took place during the civil war; ww1; ww2. it makes todays efforts look like nothing in comparison.Yes, there were civil liberties restrictions during the Civil War and both World Wars. (And they were done openly and publicly as opposed to today's secrecy and lies.)

But can you crawl out from under your bed for long enough to realize that just maybe things were a trifle more perilous when the Confederate army was marching through Pennsylvania? Or when the most fearsome war machine the world had ever seen was marching through Europe, had destroyed our Navy and was sinking our ships with impunity?

9/11 was a terrible tragedy. Thousands of innocents died. But the threat today does not compare to any of the dangers of any of the wars you listed.

Moreover, those wars were against a known, defined enemy. We could and did expect that measures taken would be short term, not permanent changes. The "War on Terror" will never be over. There will always have been and always will be enemies who use terror as a tool. Already it's gone on longer than our involvement in any of the wars you named.


if it helps stave off further tragidies on our home soil i'm for it.
Really? So when President Hilary Clinton says she needs additional powers to prevent tragedies on our home soil, you'll be all for it?

[areenactor]

now maybe you'll start to listen, and learn from it! no, wait. you're a know it all liberal youngster. you don't even think there is anything you don't know.
i have no idea what the rnc "talking points" are. i just listen to the news, and read the news papers, and use those sourses to base my opinions on. if my ideas are similar to those expressed by the r.n.c., fine, they are welcome to be correct too.
if you don't see what is at stake in our war against islamo-terrorists, then i can only think of the famous line ".. he is not so blind, as he who will not see".
there is plenty of justification for doing covert things. how about like not letting the enemy we are listening!!! ever think of that? no, wait i keep forgetting your type never thinks. :sowrong:

[tickledgirl]

no, wait. you're a know it all liberal youngster.

Aww...you say the sweetest things. :)

[Redmage]

there is plenty of justification for doing covert things.Covert does not mean "without oversight." It doesn't mean "illegal." It doesn't mean "unconstitutional."

The fact that you, Bush, and Cheney are willing to roll all those things into one is a far greater threat to our way of life than a bunch of fanatics hunkering in caves in Pakistan.

[MrMacphisto]

Many conservatives (Grover Norquist, eg) have been against the increase in government powers from the beginning.

Those would be known as the TRUE conservatives. Neoconservatives are more fascist than conservative.

[Tss]

I don't know what's more scary, you've got someone like bush running america or that a percentage of your citizens still swallow the crap that he and his cronies in the media feed you to scare you into letting them run unchecked. Our cretin in chief, blair, is just as bad. We're even going to have listening street lights here soon (we've already got about 25% of the planets c.c.t.v. Systems in our country), this craps scarier than any terrorist threats i've seen. It needs people to wake up and see the underlying motive-keep us scared and under observation, where's the final objective, what are they up to?

[MrMacphisto]

Good points.... Chances are, most of us won't wake up though....

[killemall]

I don't know what's more scary, you've got someone like bush running america or that a percentage of your citizens still swallow the crap that he and his cronies in the media feed you to scare you into letting them run unchecked. Our cretin in chief, blair, is just as bad. We're even going to have listening street lights here soon (we've already got about 25% of the planets c.c.t.v. Systems in our country), this craps scarier than any terrorist threats i've seen. It needs people to wake up and see the underlying motive-keep us scared and under observation, where's the final objective, what are they up to?


what they are up to??

they are for regulating and monitoring every single thing you do in your life. welcome to reality while all the sheeple sit on their asses and smile and say yes mr bush, sorry mr bush. sheep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



London Telegraph | March 26, 2007
Philip Johnston

Later today, the Commons home affairs select committee will announce it is to conduct an inquiry into the growth of surveillance in Britain. It is tempting to say this is not before time, but it is probably too late if the aim is to have any influence over policy.

We are already a "surveillance society". We are, for the time being, fortunate that the full potential for its abuse is constrained by the pluralist democracy in which we live. However, we do not have to look back very far in history to imagine the use to which such snooping could be put.

In the media, whenever we wish to describe the burgeoning intrusiveness of the past decade, we are inevitably drawn to one of our greatest writers, George Orwell - although even he could not have envisaged that, in addition to the ubiquitous cameras, it would be possible to track everyone from cradle to grave through computer-chip technology or to build up a database of the population's DNA. But he would have understood why it is being done.

In 1984, it is about control. The state tells its people that the cameras are there for their benefit and to prevent crime, but the crime they are preventing is insurrection. Everyone is watched to ensure they conform.

Winston Smith can never get away from the surveillance. At one point, he realises how dangerous it is even to allow his thoughts to wander in public or when facing the telescreen. Facial expressions were watched closely and could have dire consequences.

Giving a disbelieving look when a state policy or a military victory was announced was considered a "facecrime". There would have been a lot of facecriminals around on Budget day last week.

OK, so we have not gone that far. But the point is that we could. In the wrong hands, technology that appears benign can be used to shackle. Within the lifetimes of millions alive today, there were totalitarian regimes that would have made the most appalling use of such opportunities.

I have no doubt that our political masters believe the rapid expansion of CCTV cameras, for instance, is good for us. Indeed, that would be the view of most people, who seem happy with the cameras.

It stands to reason that if you have a camera trained on a shopping centre, a car park, a hotel lobby or a bus stop, we must be safer.

Well, actually, it does not follow at all. One problem is that cameras take the place of other forms of crime prevention, such as more police or better street lighting.

You might feel safer and the mugger may well think twice before striking if he thinks a CCTV camera is about. But they can engender complacency; and if cameras are so effective in preventing crime, why have the numbers of town-centre assaults and robberies shot up even as CCTV has mushroomed?

The iconic CCTV images we all remember are of crimes happening, or about to happen, not of them being prevented: the grainy image of Jamie Bulger being led away by two boys to his death; Jill Dando shopping before she was murdered on her doorstep; the four July 7 bombers boarding a train at Luton en route to London.

Perhaps CCTV will lead police in Jamaica to the killer of Bob Woolmer. But even as a detection tool, CCTV has been found wanting. A review carried out by Home Office experts and police chiefs has found that too many images are hard to access.

The next generation of CCTV will be far more sophisticated than the analogue video cameras we have now. The new ones will be smart digital technologies able to "decide" if a crime is about to happen and focus in on suspicious activity rather than on everything, making it easier to go back over the images.

These intelligent cameras can tell if someone is spraying graffiti on a wall because they have "learnt" what normal behaviour should be within their field of vision.

Similarly, a camera trained on a car park will be activated only if it detects someone going from car to car. An airport camera can be programmed to know what a departure hall should look like, with thousands of separate movements. A single suitcase left for any length of time would trigger an alarm.

This technology was developed for use in hotels to alert staff to a breakfast tray left outside a room. Soon, it will be coming to a street near you.

Why not go the whole hog and have microphones attached to cameras or embedded in street lights? The Dutch have pioneered a system that recognises aggressive sounds, without actually eavesdropping on conversations (perish the thought).

My favourite is automatic gait recognition. This identifies people by the way they walk and the Government has asked Ministry of Defence scientists to develop it for widespread use.

Cameras are programmed to pick up on a particular gait, thereby making it impossible for a suspect to escape by covering his face. Even Orwell did not come up with "gaitcrime".

It is right that the home affairs select committee should look at this, although it is hard to see what it can do about it. We already have close to five million CCTV cameras, which is one fifth of the world's total.

The average Londoner might be monitored by 300 CCTV cameras a day. They are not going to be switched off, merely made more sophisticated.

But the committee can do one thing and that is alert the country to the potential dangers of putting all this surveillance together - the CCTV, DNA, ID card, radio-frequency identification, citizens' database - and linking it up with the rest of the information held on us.

Whatever can be said for the value of any one of these, it is the combination that makes me feel uneasy. I just hope it doesn't show on my face.

[Tss]

It's funny but the more free and democratic our leaders say we are the less free i feel! I'm hoping the trials on "chipping" people, which have been used to track volunteers in an office, don't become a part of life for my kids, it sounds crazy but in years to come, if our leaders continue unchecked, it wouldn't surprise me if it's implimented for our security. The only people they don't seem to be able to or interested in keeping tabs on are child molesters and other criminals, curious that, if they're so concerned and are doing all of this to keep us safe!

[Mastertank1]

It's funny but the more free and democratic our leaders say we are the less free i feel! I'm hoping the trials on "chipping" people, which have been used to track volunteers in an office, don't become a part of life for my kids, it sounds crazy but in years to come, if our leaders continue unchecked, it wouldn't surprise me if it's implimented for our security. The only people they don't seem to be able to or interested in keeping tabs on are child molesters and other criminals, curious that, if they're so concerned and are doing all of this to keep us safe!
You see, convicts, including child molesters, have lawyers who protect their civil rights, including the right to privacy, which translates into the right to mpove into an unsuspecting community and not have anyone warned about them, so they can find more unsuspecting victims. And hey, if they can't afford a lawyer, the court will appoint one and pay them, and if they're the ones suing, they can pretty much rely on the ACLU to protect their 'right' to find new victims in unwarned communities!

[tickledgirl]

You see, convicts, including child molesters, have lawyers who protect their civil rights, including the right to privacy, which translates into the right to mpove into an unsuspecting community and not have anyone warned about them, so they can find more unsuspecting victims. And hey, if they can't afford a lawyer, the court will appoint one and pay them, and if they're the ones suing, they can pretty much rely on the ACLU to protect their 'right' to find new victims in unwarned communities!

Funny, because I can go on the Illinois State Police website (http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/) and find the names and addresses of anyone convicted of sex crimes against minors in my neighborhood.

I guess the ACLU missed that one...or perhaps the tradeoff between protecting children and protecting civil liberties (false dilemma if I ever heard one!) is a little less one-sided that you're implying.

I've got small children, and given my personal history I would take a true threat to children very seriously. This is a red herring.

[Mastertank1]

Funny, because I can go on the Illinois State Police website (http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/) and find the names and addresses of anyone convicted of sex crimes against minors in my neighborhood.

I guess the ACLU missed that one...or perhaps the tradeoff between protecting children and protecting civil liberties (false dilemma if I ever heard one!) is a little less one-sided that you're implying.

I've got small children, and given my personal history I would take a true threat to children very seriously. This is a red herring.

is that the ACLU has sucessfully blocked local police from informing the community when they find out about a molestor or other sexual predator moving into their jurisdiction.

You found out on a website; that should not hasve been necessary. Your local police should have published the information in local area or even sent a mailing to every address of a child in the local school system. But the ACLU has blocked that, because it violates the molestor's right to privacy. They also blocked police from telling people about websites where they can find the information.

The only reason they haven't tried to block those websites is because their own freedom of speech task force threatened to go against their convict's rights task force. They didn't want the media attention that would have drawn, so they backed off.

I'm a paralegal, and work for lots of lawyers, including many who are active in the ACLU; even they're disgusted with the attitude some of their colleagues take on sexual predators' rights. :confused:

[Redmage]

is that the ACLU has sucessfully blocked local police from informing the community when they find out about a molestor or other sexual predator moving into their jurisdiction.Interesting. When was this? Since the police here in California have done this, I'd like to read the ruling they're violating.

They also blocked police from telling people about websites where they can find the information. Every police website in California tells people where they can find this information.

[tickledgirl]

You found out on a website; that should not hasve been necessary. Your local police should have published the information in local area or even sent a mailing to every address of a child in the local school system. But the ACLU has blocked that, because it violates the molestor's right to privacy. They also blocked police from telling people about websites where they can find the information.

The only reason they haven't tried to block those websites is because their own freedom of speech task force threatened to go against their convict's rights task force. They didn't want the media attention that would have drawn, so they backed off.

Well, I'm paranoid enough about keeping my RL private (part of that personal history I was talking about) so I'm not going to give you the link from my local PD. But that's how I found it. And if you'll follow the link, you'll see it an Illinois State Police site. I really doubt that the ACLU was worried about the "Free Speech" rights of the Illinois State Police.

The only sex crime against kids we've had in recent years was a pervert who flashed a little girl. I got a note from my kids' school with all identifying information on the guy, and a followup notice from the police department.

I can't say what things are like in New York, but I in Illinois what you're saying just ain't so. Is New York's constitution that much more restrictive?