Civil Liberties, Good or Bad?

[YoungDemocrat]

Of course the biggest news today is the covert surveillance program conducted by Bush with little congressional oversight. Legal experts agree that it was probably illegal and definitely not within the propper conduct of a democracy and tech experts agree that the program which was intended to monitor foreign calls monitored some domestic ones. I am not afraid that the Bush administration has used this program to spy on me, my cat, or my next-door neighbor, I would wager that in fact the program has stuck mostly to its intended purpose and that only people who probably deserve surveillance are getting it with a few exceptions. My concern with the program is the same as my concern with the Patriot Act, which I consider to be a good piece of legislation with a few big errors having read some of it and having done some fairly reasonable research from sources inside and outside of the Justice Department and ACLU's polarized commentaries. My concern is a precedent being set for very dangerous erosions of civil liberties by a future executive or someone within our current executive branch even outside of the president's inner circle. I don't care whether the government looks at my library records unless I'm not completely sure that there has been something done to circumvent the notification and approval of the legislative and/or judicial branches. I feel that unfounded accusations of conspiracy within the government are dangerous and erode a reasonable position against Bush's program. I am not saying that opponents of the program should not fight its glossing over tooth and nail or accusing anyone on DU of making unfounded accusations but making a friendly reminder that rattling and yelling are not tools of the informed and that people on the fence are much more likely to be convinced by reasoned argument. Also, the government is not out to get you, not you personally anyway ;).

[MissMarple]

1. A little something from Robert Reich on the rule of law & civil liberties.

This was first posted in editorials by Thom Little.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x180498

I think it says a lot about how interactive our political and economic systems are.

"From its infancy, modern capitalism depended on liberty and predictability, and business leaders fought for the rule of law. The idea that a head of state must be bound by law emerged from the struggles of the 17th and 18th centuries with monarchs who claimed to have divine right to do as they pleased. A rising class of European merchants insisted that rulers do only what they were authorized by law to do.

These business leaders understood that economic liberties could not be separated from civil liberties. If a king or emperor could arrest or detain or search or torture anyone for whatever reason, there was nothing to stop him from taking private property, interfering in private contracts, commandeering private resources.

.......

If civil liberties can be sacrificed at the whim of the president -- without deliberation by Congress, and absent the normal procedures involved in making law -- economic liberties are equally at risk. How far are we from the specter of no-bid government contracts to politically well-connected suppliers who agree with the President’s assertions about the war? Of selective prosecution of antitrust laws or health and safety regulations, depending on support for the President’s war agenda? Of pressure on the media to provide favorable coverage of the war, in return for regulatory favors?

When a president or a king is unaccountable to law, it’s impossible to predict where or how he will act in pursuit of his aims. "



http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=V...

[LeftNYC]

2. Illegal wiretapping is scary(period)

I have never had a reasoned argument with a Republican who doesnt recite talking points that are laid out on cable news or the newspapers.

First, it is spelled out that you cannot spy on people in the US without a warrant. Why couldnt Bush get a warrant if this program is being used "for its intended purpose"? FISA approves nearly everything.

Second, this is very, very dangerous because it is a complete torch to civil liberties. I am not worried about future leaders abusing it. I am worried about BushCo using it and then moving forward. If you can spy on anyone without reason, what's next?

We are yelling because reasoned debate hasnt worked. We are frustrated by the abuses of power that continually seem to surface. The fact that the NYTimes had this story a year ago and held it off because Bush requested it makes this bit of news even more disturbing.

A simpler way of saying it: I dont trust anything that Bush and his cronies do. How can you?

[MissMarple]

3. He does say this...in the middle of the paragraph.

"My concern is a precedent being set for very dangerous erosions of civil liberties by a future executive or someone within our current executive branch even outside of the president's inner circle."

I don't trust George and his cronies, either. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are covering up a whole lot of things that even Republican loyalists will be shocked by. That the NYTimes sat on this for a year is damning.

[LeftNYC]

4. Yeah I reread it and saw that...

I am just tired of people giving on our side giving him the benefit of the doubt (mainstream Dems) or defending him (Lie-berman)

[YoungDemocrat]

5. It's a stuggle

I am skeptical of what Bush and his cronies do, and that bit is easy. I don't actually believe that everything Republicans do is downright evil and many of them have similar ideas of counterterrorism and protection as liberals. Could this have happened with a liberal president? Yes. Does that give them any excuse to bypass the courts (especially FISA)? No. If it did happen with a liberal president, and this a check I use to keep totally partisan unreasonable things out of my mind I would oppose it and recognize that its applicication was misguided and illegal but that its intentions were good. Has Bush gone way overboard? Yes. Have Democratic congressional leaders supported it more than opposed it? Yes. This indicates to me that though the program was flawed and illegal, it wasn't thoroughly evil. Blind mistrust is as dangerous as blind trust.

[LeftNYC]

6. But why should we trust them?

I am asking you. I need a reason to trust Bush.

[YoungDemocrat]

8. Trust?

You misunderstand me, there are many people I distrust, Bush included, but when they speak to me I do not automatically assume that they are lying but I treat it with a healthy dose of skepticism. When people get up on a podium and say, "The sun rises in the east!" and immediately they are taken for liars there is a problem. That's how a lot of right wingers think and I hope that we can remain above that.

[LeftNYC]

11. I understand that, but

to me it is not "blind mistrust". Liars lie, continually. Abusers abuse, continually. Blind mistrust, to me, is what you are describing above. BushCo track record is what is causing me to be totally skeptical of everything they do. I am so cynical of this administration that I dont believe anything that they say. Nothing. Its great to be open minded, but when you are constantly misled and lied to, it is difficult to remain unaffected.

[YoungDemocrat]

26. But it's good

You shouldn't let it affect your unbiased critical skepticism and turn it into a useless hate and mistrust.

[LeftNYC]

7. If this happened with a Liberal president...

the media and the GOP would have him/her strung up by now. I am not trying to be difficult. I am just completely fed up with the doublethink and meaningless words and misnomers - i.e THE PATRIOT ACT-that the Right Wing uses. I have yet to meet a Republican who can change my mind that all they care about is the bottom line-profit and corporatization.

[ProSense]

10. This argument is not sound.

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin, 1759

The Democrats, too, are bound by law to act responsibly. Your assertion that they aided and abetted Bush, by doing their job is preposterous.

Bush is the one who committed a crime, not the Democrats.

The Constitution was designed to protect our rights and is not subject to circumvention at Bush's whim.

[YoungDemocrat]

13. Pardon?

The Democrats who approved this program could have raised a bigger fuss over it, no question. I don't think they're criminals, the fact that they did stand by it for the most part suggests to me that Bush's intentions were not so shocking or evil as some would like to think. I don't support the program, I've said that, but raising eyebrows knowingly and making accusations with no base doesn't win any arguments.

[LeftNYC]

16. Now your off track...

what democrat "approved" this program?...Go back to freeptown...

[YoungDemocrat]

18. Let's name a few

Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, ring any bells?

[LeftNYC]

19. They approved illegal wiretapping?

and abuse of the constitution...FREEP ALERT FREEP ALERT

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

[YoungDemocrat]

22. If you read the papers...

You would know that this is the case, some raised concerns, some didn't. Check today's NYTimes, there's a two page feature about wiretapping.

[LeftNYC]

28. Again they were briefed that the

spying would be done without warrants?

[ProSense]

21. Freedom is not an occasional right, and reading is fundamental!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2330341

[Sparkly]

20. "its intentions were good."

I see NO reason to believe that. It undermines the Bill of Rights, and without any reason related to terrorism or national security (since any legitimate wiretaps could have been granted legally, even retroactively). So what are the "good intentions?"

"Have Democratic congressional leaders supported it more than opposed it? Yes."

Where did you get that idea?!?

[YoungDemocrat]

24. From the facts

Democratic congressional leaders were briefed on the program and didn't give it much hassle. Were they briefed improperly? Perhaps. They knew enough about the program to know it was giving Bush this power.

[ProSense]

27. What? They gave him no power. Pay attention: Bush did this in secret. n/t

[YoungDemocrat]

29. No

Bush shared this program with congressional leaders, and amongst that group it was a secret.

[LeftNYC]

30. How much did he share? nt

[Sparkly]

31. "amongst that group it was a secret"

In fact the group had NO WAY of protesting, bringing it to Congress for debate, etc. etc... They could say they objected (in secret), write letters of protest (in secret), but they were not even asked, let alone given authority, to support it nor to stop it.

[ProSense]

32. No

Rockefeller and others expressed concern in the very classified stages of Bush's push to do this and could not disclose their discussion by law.

I imagine some people, maybe even you, would have hung them out to dry for violating their legally binding commitment to sworn secrecy for life regarding those discussions. As Rockefeller pointed out, he was able to speak out after the issue was no longer classified.

Bush brought the issue up before Congress and they explicitly denied him the authorization to spy on Americans. He proceeded to do it in secret, and now even the FISA court judges are questioning the legality of the evidence presented to them.

[Hello_Kitty]

23. I wouldn't want a "liberal" President having this kind of power

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This goes beyond ideology, although I find their aims particularly reprehensible. I don't conclude that what they are doing isn't evil simply because some Dems may have supported it. But I don't think the Dem lawmakers, or many of the Republicans for that matter, were conceding a blank check to Bush and Cheney to suspend basic Constitutional rights. Have you noticed how many on the Right are NOT happy about this? Former Rep. Bob Barr, who's no liberal for sure, had some scathing things to say about it. This is one of those rare instances where liberals and quite a few conservatives have common ground.

One argument to use on right wingers is to suggest to them that if the Fourth Amendment can be ignored in an overzealous pursuit of "terrorists", then the entire Bill of Rights (including their precious Second Amendment) is in jeopardy. Ask them how they'll like it when the Feds start collecting people's guns.

[YoungDemocrat]

25. No, neither would I

My point was that I think the power is wrong but that it's not totally evil or obscene. Investigate, indict, don't blindly mistrust.

[eleny]

9. Since you aren't afraid - then share your real name with us

[LeftNYC]

12. Lewis "Scooter"Libby...

lol

[eleny]

14. Heh...heh...heh!!!

[YoungDemocrat]

15. Cute

I've shared my indentity on this forum before but my worry is not about the government but about LeftNYC ordering 500 books of mormon to my house.

[LeftNYC]

17. 1 for each of your wives...nt