In Soviet Russia, Bush Spies on You

[corplinx]

Well, we are in day two or three of the latest manufactured brouhaha. I think its funny to look at the templates being set.

The big two templates in the press are "Bush is Spying on You" and "Nothing to see here folks". The difference between these two templates is that the first template (basically the democrat innuendo) is just plain dishonest. The second template does a disservice to people who want to question the legality and ethics of FISA.

What other kind of creative role reversals do we have? We have the elephants clamoring to find the leaker of classified info. We have the democrats scuttling to keep the press "on message" and not discussing leaking. Kinda funny, huh?

Your mission should you choose to accept it, discuss the latest attempt at scandal politics without taking a side.

[shecky]

I thought this was the punchline to a Yakov Smirnoff joke.

[Kopji]

I don't think we the public can determine the legality at all.

I am perfectly willing to let our process of checks and balances take care of the matter.

Congress seems a little pissed that some laws they passed are being ignored by the exec branch though.

[Nyarlathotep]

There are really two seperate things that broke nearly simultaneously and it is important not to confuse the two, though I think a lot of people are. One is the revelation that domestic anti-war groups have come under DOD surveillance and the other is the revelation that Bush authorized wire taps without warrants. They are two seperate issues but the fact that they came out so close together makes a lot of people conflate the two, I think.

As for the first issue. I am really torn. I realize that it wouldn't be out of character for terrorists to use anti-war groups as a front but there is a fine line between alegitimate investigations of such suspicions and mere spying for purposes of trying to silence dissent (ala COINTELPRO in the 70's). I am willing to wait on the results of investigations to see if that line has been crossed.

The second issue is far more serious, I think. The president claims that his actions were legal and that civil liberties would be safeguarded. Unfortunately, if he has elaborated on either position, I missed it. I would like to see exactly HOW he justifies his action legally and what safeguards are supposedly in place to keep this from getting out of hand. From a skeptical point of view, he has made a claim, he needs to provide evidence to back it up.

[Cleon]

So spying on US citizens without any warrant or oversight is ok.

And, as we all learned during the Padilla fiasco, there's nothing wrong with locking people up without trial.

Meanwhile, Rikzilla has been informing us that McCarthy wasn't that bad of a guy, and anyone who got screwed by him probably just had it coming anyway.


So what can we conclude?

Well, among other things, that the small-government conservative is truly an endangered species, if not extinct already.

[corplinx]

So spying on US citizens without any warrant or oversight is ok.

Amen, lets put Jimmy Carter on trial now. On a more serious and sad note. It seems that the answer to "So spying on US citizens without any warrant or oversight is ok?" seems to be dependent on whether you want a technical or moral one.

[Ed]

So spying on US citizens without any warrant or oversight is ok.

What does having a warrent actually mean? I have read/heard figures that suggest something like .01% of applications are turned down. Anybody have a better number or a reference? If this is so what it means is that the concept of "warrent" is a meaningless fig leaf.

Well, among other things, that the small-government conservative is truly an endangered species, if not extinct already.

I'm not dead yet.

[rikzilla]

So spying on US citizens without any warrant or oversight is ok.

And, as we all learned during the Padilla fiasco, there's nothing wrong with locking people up without trial.

Meanwhile, Rikzilla has been informing us that McCarthy wasn't that bad of a guy, and anyone who got screwed by him probably just had it coming anyway.


So what can we conclude?

Well, among other things, that the small-government conservative is truly an endangered species, if not extinct already.

Bravo Cleon!
No, I mean it. You restated my position without distorting it...thanks! Of course without the leavening context of VENONA it is slightly misleading but that's okay! It's the fairest treatment of my own view I've seen yet. Thanks!
-z

BTW: I mean it...I respect you a great deal...just wish we had more to agree on... oh well...

[Cleon]

Bravo Cleon!
No, I mean it. You restated my position without distorting it...thanks! Of course without the leavening context of VENONA it is slightly misleading but that's okay! It's the fairest treatment of my own view I've seen yet. Thanks!


Oh, I know. And you have no idea how sick to the stomach that makes me.

[shecky]

What does having a warrent actually mean?


It means that the law isn't made meaningless in a free society.

[Cleon]

What does having a warrent actually mean? I have read/heard figures that suggest something like .01% of applications are turned down. Anybody have a better number or a reference? If this is so what it means is that the concept of "warrent" is a meaningless fig leaf.

A warrant signifies that some sort of independent oversight is there. Cops can't go and set up a wiretap or search your house just because they feel like it. Or, in this case, Dubya wouldn't be able to wiretap the freaking QUAKERS just because they're anti-war. (I don't think anyone would even pretend that the Quakers are a hotbed of terrorism.)

[Nyarlathotep]

What does having a warrent actually mean? I have read/heard figures that suggest something like .01% of applications are turned down. Anybody have a better number or a reference? If this is so what it means is that the concept of "warrent" is a meaningless fig leaf.


Or that they don't bother asking unless they are certain they will be able to get it.

[Lurker]

So spying on US citizens without any warrant or oversight is ok.

And, as we all learned during the Padilla fiasco, there's nothing wrong with locking people up without trial.

Hey, I just thought of how Bush can get out of this mess. Just classify everyone he spied on without warrants as enemy combatants whether they are US citizens or not. I mean, that is how he justified depriving Padilla of his Constitutional rights.

Lurker

[rikzilla]

Oh, I know. And you have no idea how sick to the stomach that makes me.

Oh, I know...I know... ;)

BTW you'll be happy to know that my name has been added to "The Wall of Tolerance". I have a document attesting to this which was signed by Morris Dees and Rosa Parks...hey...I'm a complex dude. :D

-z

[Cleon]

Oh, I know...I know... ;)

No, I really don't think you do.

[rikzilla]

A warrant signifies that some sort of independent oversight is there. Cops can't go and set up a wiretap or search your house just because they feel like it. Or, in this case, Dubya wouldn't be able to wiretap the freaking QUAKERS just because they're anti-war. (I don't think anyone would even pretend that the Quakers are a hotbed of terrorism.)

Oh I don't know...there's about six of them that were last seen in the company of hard core jihadists in Baghdad! They're keeping strange company doncha think?

-z

[rikzilla]

No, I really don't think you do.

Oh I do...you're a lot more predictable than you think you are. Which is a good thing by the way. Self-righteous indignation really doesn't play well if you aren't consistent. I like you any way...you just have a friendly way about you....

-z

[Cleon]

Oh I do...you're a lot more predictable than you think you are. Which is a good thing by the way. Self-righteous indignation really doesn't play well if you aren't consistent. I like you any way...you just have a friendly way about you....


My opinion is confirmed. You really have no idea.

[Ed]

A warrant signifies that some sort of independent oversight is there. Cops can't go and set up a wiretap or search your house just because they feel like it. Or, in this case, Dubya wouldn't be able to wiretap the freaking QUAKERS just because they're anti-war. (I don't think anyone would even pretend that the Quakers are a hotbed of terrorism.)

It can be from the "secret" court. Sorry, if they are never refused it is a fig leaf. Unless you can suggest, seriously, that a bunch of government yahoos are buttoned down almost 100% of the time.