lycos
lycos - lycos
Just to have it is enough.
Hope that the day after you die is a nice day.

crazy frog ding ding
What good is an obscenity trial except to popularize literature?
– Nero Wolfe, “The League of Frightened Men”

“Yeah, boy, some day there will be another Clinton-esque Administration, and all we’ll have to worry about is mis-use of FBI records and the selling of nuclear secrets to China. Whhoo-eee, just like the good ole days.”

- I will not defend the missteps of individuals associated with the Clinton Administration. Do you support the missteps of the Bush Administration; do you allow extra leeway for the Bush Administration (presumably) just because you like them?

“But still we hear the hysterical shriekings about this “dangerous abuse of power.” ”

- Will you be a good little subservient citizen when power changes hands? …and it will, eventually. Remember, precedents established under Bush will not simply evaporate after Bush is out of office. Are these powers ones that you are willing to afford the likes of Hillary or Howard Dean or (insert your favorite commie/pinko/liberal)? Be very careful what you wish for…

Every time I hear about Guantanamo I think about Clinton and the Federal Case he had wiped from the books. The case where a Federal judge ruled that “Guantanamo Bay is under the ‘complete jurisdiction and control’ of the United States, prisoners there had to be accorded certain fundamental constitutional rights.” I did not protest Clintons actions at the time, I trusted at least Congress or the Courts would step in and make sure that things didn’t get out of hand. My problem was that I didn’t look to the future. I didn’t consider that perhaps a government that I don’t agree with would come to power. I think conservatives need to think about that, especially considering the recent poll numbers. George Bush won reelection by the slimmest majority (2.5%) of any sitting president, the closest previous margin was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004).

I don’t understand how anyone can say there has been no oversight of these NSA programs. Frankly, you have to have your head buried somewhere deep in your posterior to not have seen, over and over, the reports that these programs have been vetted by the DoJ, and have been presented to Congressional leaders since their inception. Reports indicate that there were areas of concern from both, and those concerns were addressed.

But still we hear the hysterical shriekings about this “dangerous abuse of power.” Is it a dangerous abuse of power when I am stopped at a sobriety checkpoint? Well, in my opinion, yes. But when I object, all I hear is “it’s for the public good, and the ends justify the means,” or “you’re on a public road, and the cost of using the public road is increased scrutiny.” Ok, then, you’re making phone calls using public utilities. Don’t the ends justify the means when you have to pay for that with increased scrutiny? For crying out loud, if the gov’t wanted to they could collect all of your garbage from the curb and sift through it looking for whatever they want. I also find it intersting that opponents of the most recent program insist on calling it wire-tapping, when it is clearly nothing of the sort. A more correct analogy would be the gov’t collecting phone bills from your curbside trash can, although even then your phone bill contains far more personal data than this program reportedly collects.

Like I said here before: if you don’t want your communications tracked, then collect a whole lot of soup cans and twine and build your own communications network, and for heavens sake, don’t use a cell phone. If you don’t want to be tracked, analyzed, and have your behavioral data sliced and diced every way imagineable, cut up your credit cards and don’t leave the house.

If the NSA, or any other agency, wants to investigate a leak and use phone records in the process, that’s fine, all by itself. Get a bloody warrant. Regarding the GWOT and all of the other WOX (War On X=Whatevers), investigations are fine, but please get a warrant. Warrants are what allow some modicum of oversight. Does the Right in this country really want to throw oversight overboard?

I know that right now it is inconcieveable to the Right, but at some point there will be an administration in this country that does not belong to the Bush family. There might be a Democratic administration, or a Purple Party administration, or whatever, in the relatively near future. The precedent that the Bush administration is establishing will afford future adiministrations the same luxury to spy on anybody, anytime, anywhere, with or without a reason, or, at the very least, any oversight and subsequent accountability.

I’m all for promoting the security of America, but the assumption that expanded powers will not be abused, if allowed to go unchecked, by this or future governments is just stupid. That’s right, stupid. All that (most) on the left and in the center (and a few on the Right) are demanding is a shred of oversight and accountability. Why does the right hate accountability?

What do you think Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, et al would think of a Hillary Clinton administration (not that I care much for HRC, but it is a very real possibility that she might be our next president) tapping their every conversation?

I’m hoping that some good right-wingers reply to this posting. Honestly, I want to understand why the right thinks that demolishing government transparency in a democracy, demolishing oversight of individuals and agencies in our government, and demolishing general accountability should be discarded. If they honestly believe these things, then the terrorist have gotten far more than they ever bargained for.

I fear for America. Prove me wrong.

We may not have hard evidence — yet — but the circumstantial evidence that domestic survelliance is much broader than we dared dread, is becoming rather substantial. It would be folly to ignore it.

I’d also ask what difference does it make if the surveillance of ABC is being done by NSA or the FBI , using NSLs under the Patriot Act? It all part and parcel of these programs that are supposed to be used to, as you put it, protect us against terrorism. If our government considers journalists to be a terrorist threat then I’d say we’re in deep trouble no matter which agency is involved.

You’ll never see the big picture Rick, if you insist on examining just one piece of the puzzle and declare it to be meaningless.