14 thoughts on “Of Rights And Wrongs”

1. It’s rights that are taken for granted that will always be vulnerable. Sad, but true.

2. Since yesterday, the world has gotten even more scary than I thought possible. Reading in the paper the rationalizations for spying on 10’s of millions of Americans and outright perversions of the spirit and meaning of the Fourth Amendment – let alone the ignoring of centuries of privacy litigation and case law – makes my blood run cold. This reminds me of Sinclair Lewis’s “novel” It Can’t Happen Here. The collaboration of the government and three (or more?) large corporations to collect and review “phone records” for “patterns” is an outright attack on the privacy rights of individuals.

   It would be one thing if the government targeted people suspected of illegal activities, but this is nothing more than fishing. No warrant, no review by a neutral third party, no probable cause, no exigent circumstance – no nothing. And what’s even worse, there’s indication that the ranking members of the various intelligence committees and leaders of both houses of Congress – democrats and republicans alike – were informed of this program and silently sat by while citizens’ rights were violated. Of course, now that some light has been shed on this program, the political posturing and profiling will begin – all to appease the folks back home.

   I lived through Watergate and thought then that nothing could be worse short of a complete surrender of the concepts of democracy, popular government and the rule of law. I was wrong – this is far worse.

   Sorry for the vent/rant. I just wanted to write to tell you that I “signed” the ACLU petition and supplied a considerable number of e-mail addresses of friends who will also sign the petition.

   Clearly, I urge others to do likewise. This is an important issue – perhaps the most important that we’ve faced in a long time. It’s not just what we know that’s frightening; it’s also what we don’t know. We need to stand together and fight this thing.

3. ACLU supports impeachment… it’s not as scary as allowing the erosion of our constitution by folks who are putting their positions before the people….

4. “IN A BOLD AND CONTROVERSIAL DECISION, the president authorized a program for the surveillance of communications within the United States, seeking to prevent acts of domestic sabotage and espionage. In so doing, he ignored a statute that possibly forbade such activity, even though high-profile federal judges had affirmed the statute’s validity. The president sought statutory amendments allowing this surveillance but, when no such legislation was forthcoming, he continued the program nonetheless. And when Congress demanded that he disclose details of the surveillance program, the attorney general said, in no uncertain terms, that it would get nothing of the sort.

   In short, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt charted a bold course in defending the nation’s security in 1940, when he did all of these things.â€?

   On this issue, I’d prefer to side with FDR than with the ACLU.

   Read the rest of the article here:
   http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9790

5. “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed

   link to article

6. Hey Mike,

   When did you become such a fan of FDR?

   Did you agree with his treatment of Japanese Americans, too?

   Welcome to Orwell’s 1984 – Big Brother is alive and well… http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html

7. Mike, may I ask one question? How are the circumstances of today even vaguely like the circumstances of 1940? Have “terrorist armies” overrun the Middle East? Are there terrorist submarines in the N Atlantic, sinking American ships? Are there terrorists in the Far East threatening to extend military hegemony over Indonesia, Micronesia, and potentially threatening to invade Australia? Is there a terrorist navy in the Pacific?

   I get very tired of hearing GWB compared to FDR. There is no comparison. In 1940, our way of life was facing a truly dangerous enemy that controlled much of two continents, had at their disposal an enormous amount of industrial capacity, and could field armies of millions of soldiers. What we are facing now? A decentralized, loosely-connected group of people who do wish us harm, but who do not control the resources truly to threaten our way of life.

   The only people with the power to threaten our way of life is the president, who has pretty much implied that he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. And note that FDR announced what he was doing. He didn’t do it in secret, behind people’s backs, without telling anyone outside the circle.

   What did Churchill offer England? Blood, toil, tears, and sweat. GWB asked us to go shopping. If the danger is so great, then why hasn’t the pres attempted to mobilize the country? Why hasn’t he instituted a draft? Why hasn’t he raised taxes to fund all of this effort? That is what a real war-time president does. To date, GWB has done none of this. Why? Is it possibly because we are not at war? There has been no declaration of war by congress, and the constitution is very clear about who has the power to declare war. Mr Bush would have you believe it’s somehow “covered” by his role of commander in chief, but I’d like to see the sort of tortured argument needed to justify that one.

   Please, Mike, you show an enormous amount of disrespect for the generations who came before us. They forced Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan into Unconditional Surrender. They faced down the USSR that did have the actual throw-weight needed to obliterate the USA. And we’re cowering in fear because of a few hundred, or few thousand disorganzed terrorists wish us harm? What about the British and the Irish who suffered through decades of terrorism? What about Israel, where terrorism is a fact of every day life? Are you suggesting that our current situation is worse than theirs?

   Show some backbone, man. Don’t willingly surrender our liberties to people who say they can only protect our way of life by destroying the liberties that make America the place that it is. Dire times require dire measures, but is this time so dire? We have faced down worse enemies. Over a million Americans were killed & wounded in WWII. Are you seriously suggesting that we face that kind of crisis?

8. Working Assets is also encouraging people to contact their telephone service provider if it is one of those that opened its records to the government without a warrant and let them know that this is unacceptable. The page about this is here:

   http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20790

9. “Working Assets” is also joining in the ACLU’s suit. They sent me an e-mail yesterday about this. They also mentioned that the other phone companies involved didn’t GIVE their records away, they were PAID for them.
   One reason (out of many) that I love them as my telephone provider is because they send me coupons for free “Ben & Jerry’s” ice cream periodically.

10. klaus, your naiveté is truly remarkable. Let’s take a step down from the sanctimonious soapbox for a second. Consider this. We lost about 2400 American lives on December 7, 1941, the day Pearl Harbor was attacked. And what did it take? A Japanese force of 105 high-level bombers, 135 dive-bombers and 81 fighter aircraft. On September 11th, sixty years later, more than 3000 lives were lost in NYC, DC and Pennsylvania. And it took just a few dozen men to accomplish this. You are certainly right when you say our situation today cannot be compared to the time of FDR. It is far more dangerous today. An individual can transport weapons that threaten entire cities. And it won’t take days and show up on radar screens like a German air strike. To call those who threaten us today as decentralized and loosely-connected is truly ignorant. But if you are correct, it is only that way because of our military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The families of thousands of Americans would sharply disagree with you when you suggest these terrorists do not have “the resources to truly threaten our way of life.� The families of those killed in the attacks in Madrid, Spain, and Bali might also disagree.

    We can’t be blind. I guess if I could convince myself that there was no threat to my family and my fellow Americans, I could support bringing all our soldiers home and just ignoring what’s happening in the region. But I know better – I know that if we are not vigilant, terrorists will attack again. And while you seem to think terrorism like that in Northern Ireland/Britain or Israel is something to be expected, I strongly disagree. I cannot watch news reports of innocent men, women, and children killed while riding a bus to school or work, or while attending a wedding or a family reunion, and say it’s just the world we live in today. Our government has a constitutional responsibility to make every effort to defend America, and I will not accept anything less.

    Today real time communication is available to just about everyone: cell phones, land phones, computers, satellite. We can talk, share information, and transfer video instantly. Those who want to do us harm can communicate from all parts of the world. Protecting Americans from harm is far more difficult than it was 50 or 60 years ago. Even the threat of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War came with a 30 minutes to an hour window, enough time to launch a response against our attacker. It’s what made these weapons deterrents. It’s ridiculous to think the government is monitoring all our communication. There just too much of it, at any time of the day. Targeting and monitoring communications by those suspected of being national security threats, particularly those outside the US, was considered necessary by the FDR administration, and the Bush administration today. And are you arguing that intelligence gathering should not be secretive? If we tell the world what we are hoping to find, they will just readily hand it to us?

    Today klaus, WMDs could kill hundreds of thousands of people in one day. So yes, we are facing “that kind of crisis.�

    I urge you to read the LA Times column today by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, chair of the House Intelligence Committee. It can be found here: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hoekstra13may13,0,7929055.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

11. First of all, I didn’t say there wasn’t a danger to us. What I did say is that the danger we face now pales in comparison to what was happening in 1940, or 1960, or 1980 when the USSR had an entire nuclear arsenal pointed at us.

    Let me repeat that: the USSR had an entire nuclear arsenal, loaded on ICBMs, ready to launch within minutes. The throw-weight was enough to blast us all to kingdom come several times over, and all of this could have happened AT ANY MINUTE. And you say it’s MORE dangerous today? Man, if I’m naive, what does that say about you?

    What part of that don’t you understand? Given that reality, how can you make a statement like you did?

    And I said that other countries face, or have faced a terrorist threat over decades. Are the British or the Israelis more naive than we are? Or more brave than we are?

    Third, yes, America is vulnerable to terrorist attack. So why hasn’t Bush done anything about some real dangers? Chemical plants are a good example. Remember the explosion in Bhopal and the damage that did? A terrorist bombing of a chem plant could kill or maim thousands. And this possibility is real, it exists right now. The problem is that making chem plants more secure costs $$, so the CEOs of chem companies have pushed back. Now Bush can’t annoy big contributors, so nothing has happened.

    That is a real, immediate danger, and Bush has done nothing about it. People wouldn’t have to come in from overseas; it could all be done here, with materials obtained here, no phone calls needed.

    It’s like how the airlines resisted hardening cockpit doors prior to 9/11. But this is America, so corporate profits are more important saving lives.

    No, Mike. You are the naive one. You think we can hide behind our army, or surrender civil rights to stay safe.

    Yes, Americans can, and probably will, be killed by terrorists. However, terrorists cannot threaten our way of life unless we surrender to them. We do that by giving up our way of life to stay safe. That’s kind of the definition of cowardice. Save my butt at all costs. I thought our soldiers were dying to preserve something. If we on the homefront roll over and surrender our rights, just what are we fighting for? And who is it that’s not supporting the troops?

    Remember the expression “better dead than Red?” That’s back when conservatives stood for something. They thought our way of life was worth fighting–and dying– for. Well, the battle has moved onto a new front. The enemy we face in this new battle is us. So, what do you want to do: save your skin, whatever the cost? or stand up and fight to preserve what America really stands for?

12. I appreciate your post on my blog leading me to see what you are up to here. Keep up the thoughful writing. Best, Liz

13. After reading these lines, I realize now it’s senseless to argue with you klaus. This says it all. “But this is America, so corporate profits are more important [than] saving lives” and “The enemy we face in this new battle is us.â€? Clearly your issue runs deeper than just intelligence collecting by federal authorities. Is it America that’s responsible for 9-11 klaus?

    To be clear, let me explain deterrent. Yes, the Soviets had nuclear weapons that could destroy us. But so did the US. The Soviets never intended to use these weapons, because they knew it would mean their own annihilation as well. And they never did. Some would argue that at the time nuclear weapons made the world safer. Do you think the Japanese would have bombed Pearl Harbor if nuclear weapons had existed then and they knew we could destroy them without ever leaving our soil? Soviet expansion was limited, and no ground war was necessary. Without such weapons, imagine how difficult it would have been to stop Soviet expansion in Europe. We don’t have to imagine because that is exactly what happened with the Nazis.

    Today, however, our enemy is not an established nation. They are organized and dangerous, but remain in the shadows where it is difficult to find them and confront them. They seek weapons of a nuclear, chemical or biological nature and are intent on destroying Americans, as well as our democratic allies. This is not the IRA making pipe bombs in garages! Do you have any idea the devastation one dirty bomb could cause if detonated in an American city? Technology is what makes today’s world much more dangerous. And far worse, this enemy is willing to sacrifice his or her own life.

    Now I know klaus, living in RI and spending time surfacing the Internet, you must know where the true dangers lie. Silly me to think that government intelligence agencies should be searching for dangers and how to combat them. They should just call klaus. Safe guard the chemical plants and we have no more worries. Being defensive is smart, but we must also be offensive in our vigilance. We need to know before the attack happens so we can thwart the danger.

    Now explain to me klaus the civil rights that have been taken away from you. Is it your ability to communicate freely with our enemy during a time of war? Is that a right you think you had previously?

    I don’t believe our civil rights have been violated. And I think it has been overblown by those who are doing everything possible to bring down the President.

    It’s not about saving my skin klaus, it’s about protecting my family, all American families, my country from the threat.

    Saving my butt? Hiding behind the army? Better dead than red? Quite frankly, your argument klaus has become incoherent. Must be all that rain.

14. Let’s see, where to start. I know where the real dangers are, but you know that the Soviets never intended to use their weapons. Hmm. Is that a toss-up? Or are you more prescient than I am? That is a toughie. And I’m the one who’s incoherent.

    Part of the problem I have is that people on the right like to pretend that people on the left don’t love America. That’s a crock. We do. We love the real America, and realize it isn’t threatened by burning the flag, gay marriage, or terrorists. It is threatened by secret gov’t actions that seek to collect records of all phone calls being made.

    When the wiretapping story first broke, it was, supposedly, just about listening to conversations where one party was overseas. Now, the latest wrinkle is that the gov’t is trying to compile all records of all phone calls where even both parties are in the US. You don’t see a problem with that? I can’t wait until a dem sits in the oval office with access to all these records; then we’ll hear the howls about “Big Brother” and invasive gov’t. What happened to those conservatives who were so concerned about the jack-booted minions of the central gov’t….

    No, Mike. Terrorists do not threaten our way of life unless we surrender it to them. We do that by surrendering our civil rights. First it’s foreign/domestic calls. Then it’s all calls. Then what? This is an adminsitration that has all-but said it’s above the law. Does that inspire confidence in you, that Dear Leader has your best interests at heart? And you called me naive?

    And let’s suppose that the current resident of the Oval Office really does have nothing but our best interests at heart. What about the next occupant? Or is GWB going to declare himself president for life and spare all of us because he’s so beneficent.

    Mike, what the pres is doing, what he’s talking about is an open-ended commitment. The “War On Terror” can never be won, because “Terror” is an abstract noun. Tim McVeigh was a terrorist. That being the case, since we will always be at war (just as Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia–that’s 1984, fyi), then the pres will always have the rationale, or the excuse, to continue to expand his powers at the expense of the other branches of gov’t. That is a breach of the US Constitution. That, by definition, is called a ‘revolution.’

    That’s about as clear as I can make it. People with power will seek to extend that power. Go read your Thucydides. Unless checked, a determined president will continue to expand. Is that simple enough? So, who’s being naive by trusting the current admin?

    PS. I ignored the silly straw man about my point on chemical plants. Please.