A letter to the editor in this morning’s New York Times, on the topic of the NSA spying scandal, reiterates a familiar refrain: the innocent have nothing to hide.
You hear this a lot lately, from Bush supporters who are perfectly willing — eager, even — to trade essential liberty for temporary safety. Because the world is a very, very, very scary place. Because we’ve never faced such a dire threat before. And of course, because we learned on September 11 that oceans no longer protect us.
I know I’ve said this before, but those of you of a certain vintage probably remember how safe you felt growing up, with those great big oceans out there, when all you had to worry about was, you know, the constant threat of imminent nuclear annihilation. You all felt awfully safe back then, didn’t you, with the duck and cover drills and the back yard bomb shelters and the Cuban missile crisis and the rest of it.
But now, things are different. We’re no longer as secure as we were back then, in the good old days, with the oceans and all. Which is why we have to let the president do whatever he feels is necessary to protect us, and we can’t let some old scrap of paper like the Constitution stand in our way.
Anyway, if you’re innocent, you have nothing to hide.
I don’t know if the good citizens who chant this mantra are really as virtuous as they claim, of course. I don’t know if they have any toys stashed under the bed that they’d rather their neighbors didn’t know about, if there are any items of clothing they like to wear when no one else is around, if they fudge the numbers on their tax returns or maybe drink a little more than they should or drive too fast or have phone conversations that they don’t want their spouses to know about or indulge, one way or another, in any one of a myriad of minor sins which are not unfamiliar to most human beings. But more likely, they’re just not thinking in those terms. What they mean is, “If I’m not planning a terrorist attack, I have nothing to worry about.” Oblivious to the lessons of history, they’re not thinking about anything else. They’re not worried about the abuse of power because they just can’t imagine themselves as the target of an abusive government. They see themselves as Right Thinking Citizens, and when push comes to shove, they imagine that the policeman or the FBI agent will notice the flag pin on their lapel and give them a knowing wink and move on down the line to harass some dirty America-hating ACLU type who deserves to be harassed by the government.
It’s often suggested that these misguided souls might be led to the path of enlightment if only the argument were framed in terms they might understand: What if Hitlery Clintoon steals the election in 2008? Do you want her poking through your email, listening to your phone conversations? But somehow even that doesn’t really seem to get through. Maybe the possibility of Hitlery Clintoon as president is just too far-fetched to take seriously. Or maybe they can barely think past tomorrow morning, and just don’t care about the consequences of their short-sighted acquiesence to clearly illegal behavior on the part of their government.
I honestly don’t know. It all seems pretty straightforward to me. As I was growing up, the lessons were clear, the difference between this country and our ideological opponents was obvious. We were free citizens — they lived in fear and suspicion, constantly monitored by an intrusive government. But I guess there were a lot of crazy ideas floating around back during the freewheeling seventies. Free love, disco, respect for the Bill of Rights — that sort of thing. These days, we know better. We understand that we need a watchful, protective presence — a kind of big brother, if you will — to keep us safe from Emmannuel Goldstein The Terrorists.
And anyway, the innocent have nothing to hide.
Right?
… crossposted this one over at the Huffington Post. Since comments are open there, I might as well throw them open here as well.
…from comments:
The NKVD (Stalin’s internal security apparatus) slogan was, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”
Does anybody know if this is accurate? Many references on Google, but I can’t find a specific confirmation. Any Soviet scholars in the house?
January 30th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Do you mean the “Bay of Pigs Crisis,” or “the Cuban Missle Crisis”? Because the latter makes a lot more sense.
January 30th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Interesting that the same people who are pushing this shallow and dangerous notion of “if you have nothing to hide….”, refuse to hand over any documents for investigations. Let’s see, there was Enron and the Energy Task Force, (they claim executive privileges, well I claim “if you have nothing to hide…”), John Roberts correspondences(they claim executive privileges, well I claim “if you have nothing to hide…”), Harriet Myers debacle/documents(they claim executive privileges, well I claim “if you have nothing to hide…”), 9/11, anything and everything,(they claim executive privileges, well I claim “if you have nothing to hide…”). There has to me a ton more(any one please add to the list), and I say, lets “Spin” this BS right back at them.
January 30th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
BrianD is of course correct. Post edited accordingly.
I even ran this one by my wife the historian before posting.
January 30th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
I missed the recent Katrina disaster, add that to the list
January 30th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
The most frightening thing is that the average Republican on the street cannot bring himself to find fault with anything the Bush administration has wrought upon us. I have been constantly amazed at my Republican friends, who are otherwise coherent, intelligent people, but who refuse to acknowledge even the slightest misgiving about Bush. Then last week I found this on a blog by Roger Ebert’s web editor:
New brain studies show that “partisan” opinions are largely unconscious, and unaffected by reason. Which explains a lot about why political arguments never seem to get anywhere. The experiments, conducted by neuroscientists at Emory using MRI scanners, focused specifically on partisan political opinions, but I would not be at all surprised if further research found similar results with regard to people’s feelings about, say, sports teams or music or movies.
The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain’s pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected.
“Everything we know about cognition suggests that, when faced with a contradiction, we use the rational regions of our brain to think about it, but that was not the case here,” said Dr. Drew Westen, a psychologist at Emory and lead author of the study, to be presented Saturday at meetings of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in Palm Springs, Calif. […] It is possible to override these biases, Dr. Westen said, “but you have to engage in ruthless self reflection, to say, ‘All right, I know what I want to believe, but I have to be honest.’ ”
This is clearly where we are, at least on the conservative side. If you extend the logic, it is easy to see why Republicans are getting elected while Democrats are losing all hope of regaining the country. Democrats dissent against their own. Many were appalled by Bill Clinton’s pecadillos, and more so by his lying about it. But Republicans don’t mind Bush starting unprovoked wars, his lying about it, his mismanagement of virtually everything he has touched, or his incredible arrogance while endangering lives, like stating, in response to Hamas victory in Palestine: “I don’t see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform.” How does he get away with that..? Smirk and go. It’s now our national policy. As I said in a letter to the editor, what Bush should have said about the Hamas - and about liberals in this country too, I suppose - is “We hate them for their freedom.” Meanwhile, Democrats lose elections because they lack unity on the isues, while Republicans stand in literal solidarity on any inane or insane platform proposed by the neocons. So it is no surprise that so many Americans are so willing to give up the very freedoms that our founders fought and died for.
January 30th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
It’s like that old George Jones song, “Tonight The Oceans Let Me Down”
January 30th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Use of constant danger to hype public to let the executive take complete power was played out in the last few Star Wars movies. The evil emperor was also manipulating the supposed enemy to produce the danger the public needed saving from. Once the senates power was relinqished, an unstoppable beast was released. Who will destroy our death star?
Is art imitating life, or life imitating art?
January 30th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
If the innocent have nothing to hide, what’s the holdup in the Iraq war intelligence phase two investigation? Why won’t the President release records concerning his meetings with Jack Abramoff? Why wouldn’t he testify under oath before the 9/11 commission? Who did Dick Cheney meet with concerning the Administration’s energy plan? Why won’t the White House allow more Congressional oversight into the way war money has been spent? Why aren’t we allowed to see the source code for Diebold voting machines? Why is the NSA whistleblower being pressured to avoid testifying before the Senate next week? Who were the White House officials who leaked Valerie Plame’s name, who helped, and who knew?
For the most secretive White House in history, somebody should probably point out that this “the innocent have nothing to hide” bullshit works both ways.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Although it should have been obvious all along, Tom’s recent analogy about the terror of the Cold War really struck a note with me and reminded me how scared I was as a kid that we were going to destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. I can’t believe that I had forgotten! W’s words about this changing everyhting ring hollow in this context.
The frightening thing about the wire-tapping is that sometimes even people who “aren’t doing anything illegal” get hurt. COINTELPRO anyone? Did you notice that the only folks who are actually being picked up for so-called domestic terrorism are animal rights, enivronmental and peace activists? This is the real concern of wire taps to me. When will they decide that all the vegetarians or leftists or artists (or whatevers) need to be rounded up? It could happen. It has before.
Thanks Tom for opening my eyes AND for opening comments!
January 30th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
GWB: “I have to subvert the Constitution in order to save it.”
January 30th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Seems to me the only protection we need is from our own government.
Sad really.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
To push the “We’re becoming communists” along a bit more:
The NKVD (Stalin’s internal security apparatus) slogan was, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”
And they call us pinkos?
January 30th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Being of the about the same vintage as Tom I can say how idiotic and moronic and downright dishonest it is to say that we have never faced anything like this before. I grew up doing “duck and cover” drills so I could “protect” myself when the big one dropped. Even as young lad I knew something didn’t seem quite right about that after seeing films of nuclear bombs blowing the crap out of things in Nevada.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Smirk and Go isn’t just the Preznit’s M.O. The guy on the other side of the partition here at work has made what he considers brilliant rebuttals of any Bush criticism. He just smirks about Monica and Bill and thinks that puts me in my place. I would LOVE to be there when the Gonzales goon squads come for him.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
The main point that needs to be made against these warrantless wiretaps is that they create new temptations for the powerful to abuse their power (and to do so in ways that were fairly commonplace in the past). If presidents don’t have to submit requests for wiretaps for review, you can be sure that they will be used against the people who are of most immediate interest to presidents–political opponents, and members of the opposition. It’s a reflection of our inability to have meaningful discussions of politics in this country that everything has to be seen throught the lens of the personal. No, it’s not likely that these powers will be used against average Americans. They will (and, no doubt, are) being used against people who have the ability to threaten the power and prestige of the president and his backers.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
John from VT Says:
The NKVD (Stalin’s internal security apparatus) slogan was, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”
Chilling. Along those lines:
People who think the President should be able to throw American citizens in jail without charges or access to a lawyer, establish secret CIA prison camps, torture people, and spy on Americans without a warrant might also like to change the name of our country to the United Soviet States of America.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Ironic isn’t it? The same people whose utter terror make them ready and willing to give up basic American rights and protections are the first ones to call John Murtha a “coward.”
January 30th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
What ever happened to “Innocent until proven guilty”?
The best part of being ‘born again’ is that you were only born yesterday, and if you happen to sin or become a boozehound, you can be ‘born again, again*’.
* offer only applies to white, male christians
January 30th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Home run on that post. See what I miss when I wait until 1:00 to get my TMW fix?
But, alas, a huge percentage of this country seriously believe that our country could never lose it’s freedom. It’s not in their reality. It couldn’t happen here.
I’m not sure it’s worthwhile to argue with them. We should stay on a positive message, activate the base, and work to persuade those who can be persuaded. Nothing that has happened thus far has even convinced them that this country is being run by incompetents. If this administration destroys America, they will undoubtedly blame someone else.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Tom:
Excellent cover, it really says it all!! I am a big fan of your work - you (and Lynda Barry) were the reason I picked up a Madison Isthmus every week back in the 1980’s. I would pre-order a book today if I did have such a big drop in personal income during the George the second’s reign. Keep up the good work!
January 30th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Oh gosh.. Hitlery Clintoon. I hadn’t heard that one before. It made me laugh, that’s for sure. Gosh those wingers are nuts.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Come on, jrm78. Don’t use such a broad brush. Plenty of people misuse the born-again concept, to the embarrassment of those of us who believe it. Being forgiven is not a license to keep acting the way one used to act. And think about lady scumwads like Deborah Gore Dean before you snark about “white male Christians”.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
I totally agree with your post, and would add this: In addition to worrying about the government intruding on our own lives, we should also worry about them intruding in on the lives of those whom we might want to represent us.
For example, what if they wanted to spy on a CNN report whose spouse worked for the Kerry Campaign? What if they were trying to obtain a bit of strategy; or a piece of information with which they could blackmail Kerry, forcing him to drop out of the race?
Isn’t the potential of such a scenario happening one that would even affect those who might “not have anything to hide?”
Just a thought. (Oh yeah, keep up the great work.)
January 30th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
“They see themselves as Right Thinking Citizens, and when push comes to shove, they imagine that the policeman or the FBI agent will notice the flag pin on their lapel and give them a knowing wink and move on down the line to harass some dirty America-hating ACLU type who deserves to be harassed by the government.”
Absolutely. This is the real sticking point. If they really thought their privacy would be violated, they’d be up in arms. I think if it came to the point of having daily police searches of their home, the “if you’ve got nothing to hide…” refrain wouldn’t be heard from as many people. But as long as they don’t see it as affecting them, or it remains relatively unobtrusive-like wire taps- somehow many people don’t seem to grasp this as the threat to personal liberty that it really is.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Ken #22, my apologies for assuming too much (you know what they say about that…JNLYBJ). Even though I haven’t read it yet, my mother has been raving about the Jimmy Carter book “Our Endangered Values” saying that he makes a very good case in seperating the fundamentalists (Robertson, Dobson, et al) from the Evangelicals. It will definitely be going in the “must read” pile.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
The freedoms which these folks are so willing to throw away are the principles which our society is founded upon. Without those principles, or if they change according to circumstances or who is in power, what are we left with?
It’s not about whether or not you are doing anything to be afraid of anyone finding out about. It’s about whether we are changing our fundamental principles in response to fear and loathing. And if we do that (as we appear to be doing), Osama has won. And BushCo is just Osama’s little helper.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Thank you Greg, you said exactly what I tried to say, I guess that is why you have a Blog, and I do not.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Let’s see….a one in a million chance that some conversation of mine will be listened to (and immediately canned as irrelevant) by some automated computer in Fort Meade….or blasting the government for rightly listening to terrorists’ conversations…
Society is NOT founded on the principle of your-liberties-above-everyone-else’s. Society is NOT founded on the principle of your-phone-conversations-are-more-sacred-than-the-Bible. That does NOT mean the government is entitled to violating them freely. But I think the Administration has provided enough legal justification for the NSA program - check Alberto Gonzales’ speech for example. I don’t think it’s fair or even rational to claim this NSA thing equals a Reichstag fire, the NKVD or whatever delusional, insulting comparison someone comes up with. There is no conspiracy to invade your privacy. There is no government effort to progressively ban civil liberties. Nobody really cares about you, and they are just doing their job. If in the end this program turns out to have been out of legal boundaries, it still won’t have its origins in some perverse effort to invade your privacy, but in an honest one to defend your country.
Ever since September 2001 and the Patriot Act, many people have been claiming it’d be a downward spiral towards a Bush Nazi dictatorship run from Crawford, with the government spying on you and your neighbors and sending you to prison for criticizing the war. This has obvioulsy not materialized, and we’re in 2006 already. I think it’s time to change the script, because it is evident that neither this NSA program, nor the Patriot Act, nor TIPS nor any of the other mini scandals the New York Times has come up with has amounted, even nearly, to the Gestapo society many of you thought would be imposed upon you beginning in 2001.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Whoever thought David Byrne was talking about the Republican Party way back in the mid-80’s when he wrote this? …from the song :Life During Wartime”
Trouble in transit, got through the roadblock, we blended with the crowd
We got computer, we’re tapping phone lines, I know that ain’t allowed
We dress like students, we dress like housewives, or in a suit and a tie…
This ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco,
this ain’t no fooling around…
January 30th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Patrizio,
I would argue that the outcry brought upon by these ” mini scandals the New York Times has come up with” has prevented any serious actual erosion of our freedom. These are trial balloons to see how far they can go. Without outcry, they would push further.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
jrm78: ‘S cool.
Patrizio: You’ve got to be kidding. The way Chimpco brands everyone who doesn’t agree that the Son of Poppy is the Greatest, Bravest, Wisest, Most Manly Preznit EVER as a filthy, homo-kissing traitor in league with al-Qaida doesn’t strike you as uncomfortably close to the Communist regimes the sainted GIPPER hated so very much? I’m not scared of the terrorists, but the direction our own goverment is heading scares the crap out of me.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
“I’m obscure.”
I think that this is _really_ what people think when they are willing to give up privacy like this; Patrizio is an example.
Basically, people believe that they are simply too dull to be picked out of the crowd, not that they are too innocent. Any of my info gleaned out of data mining will be buried in the bulk of the population. I don’t have Arabic features. I don’t make international business trips. I don’t make international calls. I don’t have any enemies in the FBI or NSA that would abuse the system and spy on me.
But obscurity is not security, as has been oft shouted in computer security circles:
- Your neighbor, who you will vouch for, DOES look Arabic, even though he grew in the same town you did.
- Someday you will take a vacation in Egypt.
- Someday somebody will steal your cell phone and call lots of suspicious numbers.
- That NSA guy down the street might like what your wife looks like and looks up how much you make.
In other words: you may be obscure now, but only luck keeps you in the center of the herd. You could easily wander to the fringe and get eaten.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Let’s see….a one in a million chance that some conversation of mine will be listened to (and immediately canned as irrelevant) by some automated computer in Fort Meade….
or, alternatively, given, along with thousands of others, to fbi agents to chase down as “leads” that go nowhere. did you actually read any of those new york times stories that you casually dismiss? and as for gonzalez’s rationale, it was pretty thoroughly debunked by the non-partisan congressional research service. it strains credulity that anybody actually believes that congress’s authorization for bush to use force against afghanistan allows him to violate the law on wiretaps.
January 30th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Patrizio, you obviously didn’t even take the time to read Tom’s latest comic, or you might have seen this from TMW… “… (you)… if it helps keep America safe, it’s fine by me… Sparky: …the FISA court allows agents to conduct surveillance for up to 72 hours before requesting a warrant, which is almost always issued.”
The point is, how would you know that these taps will not be used for other purposes besides fighting terror, say against a political opponent for intance, with no record of the occurace, just how would you know? By the way, the “Gestapo society” you speak of didn’t really exist for most Good German Citizens either… that was reservered for the Jews and non-Germans.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts abso-F-in-lutely.
January 30th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
I’ve been thinking for a while now that “9/11 changed everything” only for those too blind to have seen 9/11 coming.
January 30th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Dan Gilotte
Yes, that could perhaps be a fair statement, but alas it can’t be proven.
Ken
Are you clinically insane? Seriously, comparing the liberal democratic government of the United States with the totalitarian communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union is a sure sign of your radicalism, which renders your viewpoint invalid. Come on…that viewpoint is straight out of Noam Chomsky or CounterPunch man…
DrNathaniel
I’m not an example of anything. My point is that I see a lot of narcissism in complaints of the NSA spying program, instead of real actual concern over civil liberties (especially considering the political background or affiliation and personal history of the speaker). I do think there is a point when the government’s intrusion into civil liberties is indeed excessive. I just don’t think we’re anywhere near that point yet.
What is it exactly to get “eaten”? Yes, there is a one in a million chance that somehow my name might end up in some NSA list? So what? If they come knocking on my door to ask me a few questions, I’d be glad to. You will certainly claim this is proof of my compliance with surrendering civil liberties and the usual blabber, but it is not. It is part of being a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN. Responsible citizens are willing to endure some nuisance in order for their society to be better. What’s the worst thing that could happen? I have of course read of some isolated cases, like the guy in the Macedonian border or the Syrian-Canadian who got sent to Syria itself. Those are exceptions, and as I said before, and this is something that CANNOT be refuted, the Gestapo society many envisioned is nowhere near us - and I don’t think it will neither in the short nor in the long term.
January 30th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Patrizio,
Me, a radical? I’m flattered….I think.
But seriously: I grew up hearing tales of the Evil Empire, to use the GIPPER’S charmingly childish term. Oh, those evil Rooskies! They spied on their own people! They’d drag folks off to labor camps or torture chambers from which few returned! They wouldn’t let certain people leave Russia!
If you really think that the actions of our government bear no resemblance to these actions, then I suggest you’re not paying attention. No-fly lists…Demanding records from Google, Yahoo, etc…Extraordinary rendition. We may have a long way to go, but we’re already far too far along that road. I’m horrified and ashamed that so many are so utterly willing to abandon everything that made us a great nation. So: is my grief invalid, too?
January 30th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
LifeInHandBasket
I am aware of the legal conflict with the existing 1970s law and its FISA courts, and what the Bush Administration has done.
I do believe the Administration’s argument that too many of its requests had been denied, not to mention the delay. 72 hours? For a phone call? Completely useless.
Additionally, I don’t believe this power would be used to spy on “political opponents” for many reasons. For starters, the way the American government is designed. It’s open, even under the secretive Bush Administration. Proof of that? Valerie Plame, NSA itself, the list is endless.
Second, it has to go through NSA, and they do reject orders if they are illegal, as does the CIA. There are endless amounts of cases wherein the Executive’s agencies’ hands have been tied up by good old fashioned law.
January 30th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Ken
Sorry, but I can’t agree with you. There simply is NO basis for comparison between the gulags, Stalin’s purges, collectivization, the KGB’s brutal intrusions into society and basically any other aspect of Soviet society and American society.
Has any of your civil liberties, or of anyone you know, been damaged or canceled? Is the Bill of Rights gone? Is the Constitution gone? I think you are too much into this “Bush is Hitler” frenzy that you have lost touch with reality. There is a world of distance between the Patriot Act and the NSA on one hand, and the Soviet Union on the other. Seriously.
What made you a great nation is still there, and shining like never before. Proof of it is the foreign policy push, even flawed as it is, to promote democracy abroad. Proof of it is the fact that Americans have never been more prosperous and have never been happier. Proof of it is that the masses of the world flock to your ports and borders just for a chance to take part in the American Dream.
January 30th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Patrizio, you seem like a smart guy and I can only hope you’re right, but considering the dirty tricks used in most political campaigns… the FL debacle, the Watergate taps, etc… can you really say it’s not a serious possibility? Are you suggesting that the wistleblowers will always save us from this?
By the way, the 72 hours for wire taps is not a “delay” it’s “permission granted” … for 72 hours, then a warrant is requested if it looks promising. That seems quite reasonable to me.
I’m all for not unnecessarily tying up the execution of “good old fashioned law” but first you have to make sure the laws are good… and those good laws are obeyed, the president included.
January 30th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Patrizio,
It certainly seems that our civil liberties are being slowly eroded. Don’t the no-fly lists bother you? Or the way protesters are being kept out of sight and hearing of the God-Emperor W? Not every protester is a howling maniac and even the howling maniacs are entitled to free speech in this country.
Don’t forget that the desire to spread democracy was used to excuse Mr. Bush’s War AFTER it turned out that no mushroom clouds would be forthcoming.
January 30th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
LifeInHandBasket
I definitely agree with you that it is a possibility - I don’t know if I would describe it as serious. Except for Richard Nixon, the United States hasn’t had any major or even minor cases I know of involving the use of government funding or power to somehow gain an advantage over the opposition.
I also agree with you on your comments on the rule of law.
Ken
I don’t know if I agree with you on everything. Protests are still allowed everywhere, including in front of the White House. If they wer e pushed back a park or two makes no difference to me, since it’s perfectly justifiable for security reasons.
No flying lists? I think few people are in those. Some people get “flagged” when they go through checks at the airport, and are questioned a bit. This is all logical and commendable. For Christ’s sake, September 11th was a quadruple suicide airplane strike! What would you have the government do in regard to aviation security? Nothing?
I think one of the major flaws of the Bush Administration was its justification for the Iraq war. Even I, without access to government intelligence, knew there was no such thing in Iraq. Yet the invasion was stil right, for a myriad of reasons.
January 30th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Patrizio
Just a reminder of where the outrage comes from.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The point of this little piece of our constitution is that all actions of the government should be both justified, and subject to review. In the case of a search warrant, it requires that there is probable cause, and that you are looking for something in particular that you are able to describe.
Both of these provisions are being ignored in the NSA program. The administration is saying it has the authority to search without a warrant that can be reviewed for appropriate probable cause at a later date, and that they do not need to have a particular thing they are looking for in mind.
Even if they are only doing their job faithfully and honestly, the underlying logic of the 4th makes for better law enforcement. It keeps you from wasting time searching through random information instead of carefully considering how what you are searching for and why.
The underlying principle is important. The 4th exists balance the power of the people against that of the government. It is an important balance to maintain. The NSA program ignores the need for that balance, and therefore provides a dangerous model for future attempts to assert government power over individuals. The government has a resposibility to its citizens that is at least as important as that of a citizen to the society as a whole.
January 30th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
>>’Is the Bill of Rights gone? Is the Constitution gone?’
Well, when the president is unconstrained by Congress or the courts and withholds the government’s activities from public knowledge, then then what else do you suppose is left?
1. The physical piece of paper.
2. What’s in George Bush’s heart.
Personally, I’d prefer to have the checks, balances, and consent of the governed back, thank you.
January 30th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
I must say, devil horns be damned, this site sure seems to be a bastion of polite and sensible political debate… no flaming or name calling… as opposed to say, over at Hannity’s site. Thanks Tom, for opening the site up.
January 30th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
>>What would you have the government do in regard to aviation security? >>Nothing?
I’m afraid they’ve done exactly that: nothing. Pulling little old ladies aside for searches and making all of us take our shoes off isn’t helping anything. And remember how many warnings of 9/11 there were, while the Monkey King relaxed on His ranch. As for no-fly lists, the point is not so much answering questions as that once one is on such a list, one cannot get off it. I can’t say I’m comfortable with that. It solves nothing and could very well be used to restrict the movement not of some terrorist (who’d be too clever to allow such a trivial thing to stop him) but of people the gummint wants to corral.
January 30th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
lifeinhandbasket, you guys are setting the tone here. If we can keep it relatively cordial like this I might just leave comments open on an ongoing basis.
January 30th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Patrizio,
There are three instances that come to mind that might address the reason why this blank check mentality regarding wiretaps is not good.
In Denver, Wash DC, and Florida, there were three peace groups. What do they all have in common?
1. They were American citizens
2. They were peace activists
3. None had any ties to Al Qaeda, or Islamic terrorist’s
4. All had opposing views to the Administration’s view’s
5. All were spied on by this Administration
Why? How many more don’t we know about?
The FISA court has been renowned for there Rubber stamp mentality, so exaclty what was it that this Administration was asking that actually got them to say no? I think the answer is probably quite obvious.
January 30th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
“Spying on citizens….It’s not just for the KGB anymore.”
January 30th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
John:
While what you say is, in my opinion, absolutely reasonable, how about updating interpretation of said article? Surely the Founding Fathers did not take into consideration the implications or impact of XXIst century technology in the balance between privacy and security during wartime.
Sixten:
The President unconstraide by Congress? Why then is he constantly soliciting all kinds of things from them? Supreme Court confirmations, budget allocations, health care reform, authorization to go to war…seems to me like the system is working just fine. I don’t think it’s rational to invoke the NSA program as proof the ENTIRE system has been torn apart. Same with the Judiciary. Didn’t the Supreme Court rule that the terrorists being held at Camp X Ray in Guantánamo have a right to an attorney, or something along those lines (which was against what the Administration had in mind)?
Ken:
Well, I agree random searches are absurd. Ethnic and national profiling would be far more effective as far as passenger admission or inspection goes. I’m willing to go for it. Would you? Would the people who comment at this website in particular? Let’s not be hypocritical, because I assume you know quite well what the multicultural crowd or the ACLU would have to say about that kind of measure.
As for warnings before September 11th, I don’t think there were many. Yes, there’s that infamous August sixth Presidential briefing - which contained the kind of warning the President and his staff get every day, not to mention it was unspecific. Really, no one in the United States, not even Richard Clarke, had any clue as to what was going on, and that is the hard truth. Seriously, why would Bush relax at his ranch if he knew there was an attack coming? No matter what negative depiction of Bush you might have, it doesn’t make any sense. If he is stupid, then his staff is smart - and it would have pointed to him the disastrous electoral consequences of letting an attack happen. If he’s perverse and a Christian fundamentalist, then he would have certainly worked to stop the enemy. If you think he’s honest and human, as I do, then you will understand he did as best he could as far as the warnings went, as did everyone else.
mememe:
I don’t have an answer to that, but financial and personal connections between left wing and peace activists have been proven for years if not decades. Check for example the International Solidarity Movement in Palestine, which is absolutely complicit with Hamas and Jihad Islamiye. Consider environmental terrorism within the United States itself.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:22 am
I think it is obvious why W didn’t go to the rubberstamp FISA court for the NSA program. It is clear that they are tapping anything coming from, or going to, Islamic countries, regardless of who is on either end. No court would allow that. Besides that, it would require millions of warrants, even if obtained 72 hours latter. Of course, all W’s crew claims they are only wire tapping Al Qaeda, and the like. Obvious BS. I’d be surprised if one in 10,000 of their intercepts was from someone associated with terrorism. The 4th and 14th ammendments are no longer in force, and it doesn’t seem like any one in a position to do anything about it has the huevos TO do anything about it.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:23 am
I’ve had a comment for several hours, but not the opportunity to add it: it relates somewhat to Bill at post#5 and to DrNathaniel at post#32, and is perhaps tempered by the former.
Another aspect that might be involved in this denial is the axiom “we are us, therefore we are the good guys.” I think this is often a source of denial for individuals, but I think many have also bought into it on a national level.
It’s something to keep in mind, least we become our own enemy (like W using methods which fit every definition of terrorism in order ostensibly to fight terrorism); but as Bill in post#5 points out, the other side does not seem to be hampered by this restraint.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:29 am
Craig I’d agree with you there, and Bill’s post too. Honestly Patrizio, for the life of me I’ll never understand this, my party right or wrong stance that you seem to have. This isn’t a football game, lives are at stake, and you must admit Bush & Co. has bungled this to the point of almost bankrupting the country. Even if I were to concede that he was “honest” (do a little research please) and human (comment witheld), and is “doing his best”… as my mama used to say “the road to hell (in a handbasket so to speak) is paved with good intentions.” This guy has been the wrong man for the job, period! He’s a screw-up, and a vindictive one at that.
There was one Republican I respected and admired and possibly could have even voted for once named John McCain, but after seeing him campain for Bush in 2004 (and this after the smear campain BushCo. worked on him in 2000) I realized he was more concerned about having a political career later than in the good of the country. We all know what happens to Republicans that don’t tow the party line. Amazingly, some of them still have the courage to write books about the experience (try clicking on the “JawBreaker” link on this page for the last one in a long line, for instance… and read my friend, read.)
What’s it gonna take?
January 31st, 2006 at 1:19 am
As far as the legalities of the NSA spy scandal go, here’s a link to an open letter to Congress, written by numerous people in the legal profession, including several Deputy Attorneys General and one former FBI director:
http://markblum.com/phpnuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=245
There’s no question in my mind that the NSA spy program is *blatantly* unconstitutional, and that President George W. Bush has committed undeniably impeachable offenses - as well as a felony - by authorizing it!
Why is this CRIMINAL still in office?
January 31st, 2006 at 1:41 am
It’s worthwhile to remember how the soviets used their information. The soviets had dirt on just about everyone. They often didn’t use it unless you became some sort of political threat. It’s happened in America, too. The FBI was trying to blackmail Martin Luther King.
We should oppose excessive spying, not for our own sakes, but for the sake of those people who would eventually run for office or try and lead a political movement. Because lets face it, everyone has done some embarrasing stuff at some point. It’s just a question of how much dirt the powerful can dig up on those who oppose them, because that’s the way these wiretaps will be facing.
If they want to do some data mining, I’m fine with that. But I worry that Republicans just aren’t taking the threat of unlimited wiretaps for political purposes seriously.
Let he whose political leader is without sin plant the first wiretap.
We don’t need to conjure up theoretical images of Hillary Clinton spying on politial enemies. We’ve already HAD one Clinton leafing through the FBI files of his political opponents. Nixon, Clinton, Bush. This is somthing the government does on a regular basis, and has been doing for a while. I’d be reassured if the Republican talking heads were trying to justify limited wiretaps rather than the government’s right to spy on anyone for any reason.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:57 am
Patrizio,
I am not sure what the group tied to Hamas have to do with any of the groups involved in this wiretap fiasco. I think the common factor in this equation is their opposing views to this administrations. There are right wing groups in this country that certainly could be construed as dangerous, but yet they seem not to be on this administrations radar. Coincidence? I just don’t buy.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:54 am
Re: #13…Speaking of ‘duck and cover’ drills, I recall the films of Japanese elementary students practicing ducking under their school desks. Tears rolled down my cheeks because those kids died when we dropped the bomb on them.
Re: #5…I’m given to “ruthless self reflection” but my dad, a Republican, doesn’t seem to, so when we engage in debate I’ve had to shut down the self-reflection and remain firm. Formerly he’d manage to semi-convince me his viewpoint stood on better ground. Now how do I convince him “ruthless self reflection” is a virtue?
January 31st, 2006 at 10:44 am
What amazes me about conservatives is that they were all ready to go hide out in their Montana deer stands back in the 90’s because they were afraid of “intrusive big government”. Remember how Clinton was going to declare martial law after Y2K and use FEMA to establish dictatorship?
I seem to recall Clinton proposed some fairly modest anti-terrorism legislation back in the mid 90’s and the Right went absolutely ape over it.
Now they’re all saying: “Go ahead, spy on me, it’s no big deal”.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Hey kids, I think it’s time to close the doors on this one. Fresh threads at the top of the site.