Can you please show me one US citizen which has been agrieved [sic] by the NSA wiretaps? Whose privacy is being violated? We are at war, no matter how much you deny reality.Little and unnecessary insult about me denying reality aside, this question is an excellent statement of exactly what is wrong in this country. My reality is that the US is a Constitutional Republic and the constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Until the Constitution is Amended to disable parts of the 1st and 4th amendments, etc., it doesn't MATTER if someone is "aggrieved." Warrantless wiretaps are illegal. Does the law not matter? Besides, the Bush Administration could have used the proper FISA procedure and applied for warrants retroactively. They did not.
If Ii were to take CTH's question literally, I would say ME, for one. Aggrieved just means "feeling resentment at unfair treatment."
But answering what I believe he really meant: That logic is precisely the problem. Would you be aggrieved if I broke into your house while you weren't there, damaged nothing, broke nothing, and merely walked around and looked at all your shit, because I thought there might be some evidence that you were messing around with my wife? (Smart choice of lady, though. You have good taste.)
Sure you would.
What war are you fighting? If you're not fighting to protect our country and it's Constitution, what are you fighting FOR? Why can't people understand that you have to sacrifice some "security" for Freedom.
As Ben Franklin said:
Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.The Bill of Rights? I'd call that "essential."
Love to all. Even you, the guy playing tennis with the outrageous combover-turned-vertical-spike.
19 comments:
They don't make 'em like Ben Franklin anymore.
There is a lot currently quite a bit about the USA I am uncomfortable with but one thing I do admire is that you have a Constitution you can use to challenge executive abuses of power. Here in the UK we do not and the abuses perpetrated by the present government go largely unchallenged in face of the puerile playground rhetoric of 'if your not for us, your for the terrorists'.
You go into central London and you will be recorded on CCTV an average of 300 times in one day. You can be arrested for wearing a t-shirt with 'Bollocks to Blair' (Bollocks has dual meanings).
Children's (and adults) DNA and fingerprints are routinely taken on arrest and retained even after acquittal or even when the are released without charge.
The DNA of every child being born in the UK is being retained by the state.
The state is establishing a database of all the full health records of every person which can be accessed by over 600 different government and non-government organizations including the police, customs, the Council for Rural England and they are talking of insurance and financial institutions having access to it.
With things like the Oyster card (smart card for tickets on London Transport - £1 journey with - £3 without) and speed, sorry safety, cameras and other surveillance measures your movements are tracked minutely.
The police have rubber-stamped access to mobile phone records, ISP records, telephone records, financial records etc. They are also abusing terrorist legislation by using the catch all 'Section 4' to arrest people without reasonable cause merely for calling a police horse gay.
The list goes on and on.
they say the USA is about 4 or 5 years behind the UK in abuses of rights so for all your sake s- Defend that Constitution and reflect how lucky you are to have it.
First of all... I totally agree with you Rich. I feel like the US is getting farther and farther away from the constitution.
Now qaqwex mentioned something that got me thinking.... that the UK keeps DNA on file from babies.
So our babies get the PKU test and we send their blood on sheets to the gov't. This test is required and they scare us saying our child might have one of 5 diseases. I had a child at home (by choice) and I had to do the test (although only once - hmmm). My last child they did the test 3x. Poor baby. Anyway... I have heard people question this test and wonder if they test for HIV. But after reading qaqwex... could they keep our childrens DNA on file? Well I know they could - I guess the question is Do you think they do keep the DNA on file?
CG
To answer your question CG about testing for HIV - yes the can and most do. My friend works in a lab and the process literally hundreds of HIV test a week and the blood comes from newborns. They call it random but it isn't.
Many people adopt the "ignorance is bliss" mentality and think that since no one was agrieved that it makes it all ok.
The point that I find important is that a law is a law and when you deviate from that law - the danger increases.
It's quite easy to get trapped in the smoke screen of fear.....does not change that it is a smokescreen.
Great post, Rich, and what you describe is exactly the attitude that the current administration is counting on. Well, what we're doing could be throught to fight terrorists, right? Isn't that good? You want that, right? (You idiots, snicker, snicker).
qaqwex's comment 1. scares the crap out of me and 2. should be a wake-up call for Americans. We don't know how good we've actually got it, and we won't know until we've given it all away and our government doesn't even slightly resemble what our forefathers wished for us (as if it does now).
This bizarre "what are you so aggrieved about? Point out to me one time where the NSA wiretaps aggrieved you?" or the "what do you care about abortion rights? You're a 1. married woman with kids, 2. man, 3, Christian, name it" attitude is what is going to lead this country further down the road to hell, and then there'll be a whole lot of people wondering what the hell happened to the Constitution, and whole lot of other people biting their tongues so as not to say "I TOLD YOU SO, YOU STUPID SOB!!!"
To be honest, I'm terrified. I've discussed it with my parents, who were in college in the late 60's, who played guitars in parks and stuck flowers in gun barrels and/or worked for NASA building the lunar module so as not to have to leave his wife and child at home and go to a war he didn't believe in. For a while now, I've thought that maybe every generation thinks their world is ending, or this country is going to hell. But my parents, the currently wealthy Republicans that they are, think it too.
How many of our rights need to be taken away before we take to the fucking streets? Really?
Oh, damnit all to hell. I'm so angry and I have nowhere to turn with it all. When you watch the news in the coming weeks, I'll be the crazy lady on Michigan Avenue in Chicago trying to hold up 18 different signs proclaiming my anger at so many different abuses this government has perpetrated. Anyone care to join me?
Nothing like a polarizing subject to stir up the passions huh?
I could not have said it better or more succinctly. I get really pissed when encountering people who believe trampling the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights is ok because "only those with something to hide" would have to worry.
Hi Champ,
Although you feel aggrieved, that doesn't qualify as an answer to my challenge. Let me ask you this: Do you honestly think the ACLU et al, would have brought this action had the man in question been President Gore or President Kerry? I can honestly say, I don't think they would have. Would you have been outraged with a Democrat in the Oval office?
WHAT doesn't qualify as an answer to your challenge? WHAT challenge?
Your entire idea that a violation of someone's guaranteed Constitutional rights isn't a serious problem is so un-American at its core that it doesn't bear more argument. What is more important than defending the integrity of the Constitution? WHAT COUNTRY DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN? WHAT ARE YOU FIGHTING FOR, IF NOT THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC YOU CALL HOME?
Lord almighty.
A violation of someone's Constitutional rights is HUGE. How can you possibly not see that?
And I have news: I only registered as a Democrat after Bush was elected. I was an Independent prior.
Oh: and yes... I'd be just as pissed off if Kerry or Gore or Dean or Guiliani or Dole or McCain for Rudolph the Rednose Reindeer crapped on the Constitution.
CHT: Just like Rich said, I would have been mad at anyone, no matter what color ties they wore.
Heck, I was very bitter at Clinton - and not for the reason he got chewed (or sucked...) by the Republicans either.
I am not trying to be Rich's advocate, but to accuse him for not replying to your so-called argument is bullshit, because you're doing exactly what you don't want him to do: diverting the attention from the argument to something stupid like "would you be so critical if a democrat was in the Office?" Let me tell you, I think Democrats are too socialist and left wing for me, but it doesn't mean I agree with what's being done today, simply for the same of partisanship.
Rich,
You are missing the point. We are at war. If we weren't, I would be as outraged as you. Let's take an example we can both agree on. The registered sex offender notification laws are a good thing for parents wishing to protect their children. At the same time, aren't these laws a violation of the sex offender's right of privacy? Yet, our local governments send out notifications in spite of the violators desire to maintain his privacy.
Should respect for privacy outweigh the safety of our families?
Oh. My. God. Are you joking?
A registered sex offender has been CONVICTED OF A CRIME!!!!! Once a person is convicted of a crime, the sentences can include all kinds of removal of rights... like, um, PRISON.
How the hell does that relate to warrantless wiretaps? These are NOT comparable topics in any way whatsoever.
What you are saying is simply: "Being at war means that the Constitution is no longer valid."
Right? Is that what you're saying?
Jeez. I can't BELIEVE you tried to equate warrantless wiretaps with CONVICTED sex offenders.
Rich,
In criminal justice, being convicted of a crime does make the difference. However, in war, standard law enforcement rules don't work.
That is because any action by law enforcement must commence after a law has been broken. Preventing terrorist attacks demands pre-emptive action. Strict adherence to the law when dealing with terror organizations is asking to be hit. My point in using sex offender as a comparison was this: Is orthodox adherence to the law rational when protecting your family whether dealing with a molester or terrorist? Both of whom will squirm around the law to meet their goal.
"Orthodox Adherence?" What the hell is that. A case-law tested situation like notification laws for convicted criminals IS orthodox adherence.
What you're saying is that the Constitution doesn't matter.
What you're saying is that "pre-emptive" action can be unConstitutional, and that it doesn't matter to you a whit.
What you're saying, CTH, is that you don't believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and violation of Constitutional rights is AOK by you.
Which mean, in effect, that for you, the Constitution doesn't matter.
I disagree. I think the Constitution is what makes this country great.
Remember Ben Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
According to Mr. Franklin, you deserve neither.
Sorry to be so adamant, but I'm shocked by how you are willing to toss aside the basic rights that DEFINE this country, in order to PROTECT his country. When what you are doing, in actuality, is DESTROYING this country.
That makes no sense.
Rich,
Ironically as I finished posting yesterday, judge Napolitano was discussing this very subject on Fox News. It was as if you and him consulted before he came on the show. He was making the exact case you have been.
We live in dangerous times. Read this from Dick Morris, "The plot to blow up the bridge was uncovered in an NSA wiretap that could not have been preceded by a warrant. Federal investigators had no idea what they were looking for when it was discovered or where to look in the first place.
The NSA trolls through millions of phone calls and asks its sophisticated computers to discern patterns that might be suspicious. Apparently, the words "Brooklyn Bridge" (which must not translate well into Arabic) surfaced in one call, and that was enough to alert Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to flood the bridge with cops. (The alert was required by the Patriot Act, which mandates the sharing of such information, formerly limited by bureaucratic jealousy and concern about compromising sources.)
Then the NSA intercepted a call saying that the bridge was "too hot," obviously from the terrorist. Finally, by interrogating a prisoner in Pakistan (an interrogation allowed by the Patriot Act without an attorney present), the authorities got the name of the plotter and arrested him. Chillingly, the terrorist had full plans for the bridge in his apartment and had correctly identified a spot on the bridge where a well-planted explosive would cause its collapse."
Bottom line: I understand where you are coming from, I just don't share your concern about loss of freedoms during a time of war. As I said before, any administration which tried to do this during peacetime would garner my outrage along with millions more conservatives.
So, my question then, if it's still an active debate, is "when do we get our civil liberties back?"
On the one hand, yeah, I can see why somewhat more extreme measures MAY (and I really, reeeaaly emphasize MAY) be necessary.
But on the other hand, this is not an "enemy" in the traditional sense. We aren't talking a foreign regime with an organized, definable military presence somewhere. We're not talking an actual government or sovereign nation. When we attempt to define this “enemy,” we’re grasping at smoke because what we’re attempting to define is a relatively small group of people with differing religious ideals that, to them, allow for the killing of innocents in furtherance of those ideologies AND who live within a country or government with whom we wouldn’t necessarily be fighting. Well, how then, do you imagine this “war” will ever end? There will ALWAYS – let me say that again: AL-freaking-WAYS – be people on this planet who hate America’s political agenda enough to kill. Just as there always has been toward any major world power.
Given that scenario – and this is something that really pisses me off about W.’s insistence that we not leave until “the job is done” – we will forever be at war. As long as there is one insurgent willing to end his life in the effort to kill Americans, we will be at war. As long as there is one Muslim cleric with fiery rhetoric that includes the murder of those with different views, we will be at war. As long as one person is determined to be planning to blow up a bridge or smuggle a bomb onto an airliner, we will be. At. War!
I’m 39; and I can’t remember a time when there hasn’t been some religious or political leader somewhere in the world who wasn’t actively preaching the end of the “great western evil,” aka, the United States. Under the current administration, as long as the Middle East contains any non-Arab; as long as the West is U.S.-dominated, we WILL be at war.
I would very much like the Fox News crowd to define for me when victory has been achieved.
So my question again: if it’s ok to disregard the Constitution during times of war, with an enemy of ideals, “When do we get our civil liberties back?”
EA,
What civil liberties have been taken away from you? What good are any civil liberties if our representative government has been subsumed by Islam?
This is a war like no other we have fought. You nailed it when you said,"this is not an "enemy" in the traditional sense. We aren't talking a foreign regime with an organized, definable military presence somewhere. We're not talking an actual government "
This is a religiously driven movement that spans national borders. These are difficult and dangerous times.
Complaining about perceived civil rights violations by the US during these times is petty and really a cover for your irrational hatred of President Bush.
I don't even know where to begin, so I'm not going to. Certainly not on Rich's blog. People like you, CTH, terrify me. Because you see no problem with government intrusion until it affects YOU. Unless someone shows you pictures of an American being abused by his own country, you seem to think there IS no intrusion. I agree 100% with Rich: it's does not require an ACTUAL violation to be wrong. The fact that you can't see that is frightening. My point is that there is NO WAY - can I say that louder? NO F-ing WAY - to win this kind of war. Your belief in Bush's correctness and in this "war" requires you, I think, to define what the enemy is. Is it Muslims? Islam in general? People with Anti-America agendas? People who feel joy when Americans suffer? Non Christians in general? Or only those willing to pick up arms and fight U.S. soldiers? Or is it those who sit down to plan HOW to strike a blow at America? Let's just pretend for a moment that you and your fellow blind followers of all that is Bush/Cheney do, in fact, come up with a definition. Since it's irrational to actually believe there will EVER be an end to people willing to die in arms agains America, I guess we'll always have to live with the government eyes on us. So what if tomorrow the "enemy" is deemed to be something more domsetic? Like, say, anyone who demonstrates against Bush's policies? Is that ok for you? Where is the line?
So you believe Islam is the enemy? That by allowing a small number of U.S. politicians to define, detain, and dehumanize those it deems "enemies," we're going to beat those who wish us harm? Or, more importantly, that NOT doing this will cause the U.S. to be "subsumed by Islam?" WTF?!
This is the quinticential problem with those with your mindset: you think that unless an ACTUAL offense is committed against someone YOU deem worthy, then no crime has been committed at all. That unless MY personal civil liberties are violated, I should not care if someone else's are. THAT, my friend, is what makes me ashamed of my Republican roots. THIS is not my Republican party. Not the one I remember, anyway.
Oh, and I don't have any irrational hatred of Bush. That, too, is a typical Bush/Cheney-lover response to anything you don't agree with. Someone in disagreement must be irrational and a "liberal," right?
I, CTH, am an ardent lover of the United States of America. A place that's supposed to value differing opinions and values EVEN IF THEY DON'T CONFORM TO OURS! Why is that so hard for people like you to understand? To me, "all men are created equal" does not mean "only Christians" or "only whites" or "only Republicans." But, that's the mentality of those who would follow Bush right into Hell if he said it was Heaven: call anyone who disagrees a "bush hater" or "liberal." History is littered with tyrants whose intrusion into citizens civil liberties began with a promise of "security."
Guess I shot all to hell my desire to not use your blog, Rich, as a soapbox. Sorry!
No apologies necessary, amigo.
I stopped considering what CTH had to say when he pulled out the "disagreeing with Bush = irrational hatred" thing.
Besides: he's made his pont... he believes that the Constitution can and should be superceded by without the consent of the people or the Congress, and that "wartime powers" now means something completely new... and Congress doesn't have to DECLARE as state of war in order to suspend and or remove Constitutional rights.
I disagree completely, but that's that.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
While I admire the sentiment, there is unfortunately no support for the notion that Franklin uttered or penned it (or Jefferson, for that matter).
Post a Comment