Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Julian Sanchez has a good word for the anonymous sources who tipped off the press about warrantless NSA wiretaps.
|1.9.06 @ 9:13PM|#
President Bush invoked Osama bin Laden's purported eschewal of
satellite phones after press accounts revealed that the U.S. was
tracking him through it-but that example appears to be, as The
Washington Post put it, "an urban myth."
This is just plain fucking silly.
Gabe|1.9.06 @ 9:31PM|#
I don�t think he has ever cared about civil liberties � he sees his job as protecting us, not protecting our liberties.
Stephen Macklin|1.9.06 @ 9:32PM|#
The average American probably had considerably less interest in
the FISA Court and its activities than the average person in this
country routinely communicating with Al Quaeda overseas. And at the
same time they have considerably less reason to fear that the NSA
is tapping their phones.
Thus far any real details about how the surveillance was carried
out are still secret. Their revelation would probably do serious
harm.
It could even be argued that the very public confirmation of the
NSA program will make it that much harder for terrorists to believe
they have clear lines of communication. So it has probably made
things harder on them than it has on us.
|1.9.06 @ 9:47PM|#
Two thoughts:
1) Until last month, I thought of the FISA court as something
rather scary: It meets in secret, it authorizes invasions of
privacy, and it almost never turns down a request. Now I see use of
the FISA court as a step toward a freer society. But such is the
bizarre direction of America during the Bush administration.
In a completely unrelated story, President Bush and the GOP
Congressional leaders brought us the largest expansion of the
welfare state since LBJ.
2) So, somebody tipped the NYT off that the law was being violated.
And now the Justice Department wants to find the tipster.
Now, if somebody breaks into my house and I call the cops, will
they look for the burglar or will they arrest me?
Stephen Macklin|1.9.06 @ 10:00PM|#
Now, if somebody breaks into my house and I call the cops,
will they look for the burglar or will they arrest me?
I don't think your analogy holds. In each case we know for certain
that laws have been broken. The laws regarding breaking and entry
and the laws regarding the intentional release of classified
information.
|1.9.06 @ 10:05PM|#
Or what if the person who broke into my house was a government
agent acting without a warrant? Can he go to jail?
Cuz I think he should.
Stephen Macklin|1.9.06 @ 10:07PM|#
From everything I have read, that is far from clear cut and is still very much open to debate.
|1.9.06 @ 10:11PM|#
1) The link to Malkin's column shows that this dispute is
already entering into the tired kabuki of Democrat v. Republican,
with both sides trading accusations of hypocrisy and calling each
other perfectly accurate epithets. At such times, outfits like
*Reason* come in handy for those who are actually looking for some
intelligent discussion.
2) If the NSA wiretaps were legal, then we could start talking
about balancing free press v. national security. However, the
wiretaps appear to be *illegal,* and revealing illegality within
the executive branch certainly shouldn't be made a crime. Maybe a
government employee could get fired for blowing the whistle to the
wrong people (NYT versus Congress), but the act of revealing
illegal behavior should not be punished in and of itself.
|1.9.06 @ 10:13PM|#
The average American probably had considerably less interest
in the FISA Court and its activities than the average person in
this country routinely communicating with Al Quaeda
overseas.
...and, of course, those are the alternatives.
And at the same time they have considerably less reason to fear
that the NSA is tapping their phones.
I know, the idiot masses are just so, well, idiotic! ...Thank God
for the wisdom of our forefathers!
Thus far any real details about how the surveillance was
carried out are still secret. Their revelation would probably do
serious harm.
It's your patriotic duty to stay scared people!
It could even be argued that the very public confirmation of
the NSA program will make it that much harder for terrorists to
believe they have clear lines of communication.
Accountability's a bitch, and that's the way I like it.
|1.9.06 @ 10:20PM|#
It could even be argued that the very public confirmation of
the NSA program will make it that much harder for terrorists to
believe they have clear lines of communication.
It could even be argued that doing something legally stupid,
something that could drag anti-terrorism operations out into the
light, could betray clear signs of utter incompetence.
|1.9.06 @ 10:22PM|#
On second thoughts, I'd like to apologize for comparing partisan bickering to kabuki. Kabuki can actually be entertaining, as this Kabuki sound page demonstrates.
Yogi|1.9.06 @ 10:28PM|#
It could even be argued that the very public confirmation of the
NSA program will make it that much harder for terrorists to believe
they have clear lines of communication.
Did they not see 'Enemy of the State'? Come on, give these guys
some credit. They'd be hugely naive if they thought there wasn't a
possibility of being listened to by our government. Afterall,
nobody's saying we shouldn't tap Osama's phone. Just go get the
damn warrant.
Stephen Macklin|1.9.06 @ 10:33PM|#
Actually Yogi, I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that they would need a warrant to tap Osama's phone. The issue is if OBL calls someone inside the US do we need a warrant to tap that phone when the guy calls him back?:
Yogi|1.9.06 @ 10:39PM|#
Yes. You do. We're citizens and we have rigthts. The moment you start making exceptions is when we start getting sacrificing our dignity. Is there any question that such warrant would get approved? Then why is there a problem? I would even be willing to throw in a special circumstances clause saying they can get it retroactively, though they would need to be something like the circumstances you describe.
Yogi|1.9.06 @ 10:45PM|#
In fact, I would also argue that the reason they were doing this in secret, was not for the "surprise" factor, it was because they knew it wouldn't fly with the American public. Otherwise, why not include it in the patriot act? There's a law on the books that says you need a warrant. If they think its a bad law, change it! This was a political decision, a bad one, and one that is going to cost Bush.
|1.9.06 @ 11:24PM|#
Stephen Macklin,
To my knowledge it has also not been made clear what steps have
been taken by the NSA to ensure the "international" aspect of the
calls. This issue will probably never be cleared up in public, but
I strongly suspect that the NSA doesn't really have a good way of
confidently distinguishing international voice communications from
intranational ones over _all_ of the communication channels they've
chosen to monitor.
thoreau,
I have the exact same feeling about the FISA court. Before this
story broke I would have suggested that FISA is a ramshackle
structure standing in the way of an open discussion of fourth
amendment rights in the modern age. Who knew how much worse things
could be?
Anon
|1.9.06 @ 11:27PM|#
Julian:
One way of encouraging that debate would be expand the
whistleblower protections that are available to most federal
employees, which at present apply to intelligence workers only in a
highly attenuated form.
Absolutely critical! Intelligence operations are exactly where
whistleblower protections might be most efficacious in encouraging
government workers to protect the rest of us against abuse from the
government.
|1.9.06 @ 11:47PM|#
yogi:
it seems from your post that you might not be aware that there IS
in fact a mechanism for getting warrants retroactively under
FISA
|1.10.06 @ 12:18AM|#
Herrick:
I think you all know what I'd like to tap: The ass of the
carpet humping guy.
Not that there's anything wrong with Herrick wanting that, of
course. But it calls for another, Cute 80's New Wave girl carpet
humping guy antidote! This time it's the very sultry Terri Nunn of
the group, Berlin!
http://tinyurl.com/ds56v
http://tinyurl.com/9ry2c
Yogi|1.10.06 @ 12:41AM|#
it seems from your post that you might not be aware that there IS
in fact a mechanism for getting warrants retroactively under
FISA
Eggad, this is really sad. I really don't want them, but its better
than no warrant at all. That just cements further the theory that
its a political decision.
|1.10.06 @ 12:45AM|#
biologist:
...there IS in fact a mechanism for getting warrants
retroactively under FISA
So there is really no excuse for the Bush
administration not, at least, doing so. It make you think that
they're trying to condition us to accept
subservience...Never! Liberty is our
birthright!
|1.10.06 @ 1:03AM|#
Stephen Macklin: you say that it's "open to debate" whether the
NSA broke any laws in the scandal. But you also say that we
shouldn't be allowed any information about what they were doing.
That doesn't imply much debate.
The fact is, they had a secret court to go to, one whose workings
are hidden from the public, one that has a record of being pretty
understanding towards the intelligence community. If they were
willing to engage that sympathetic audience in a secret debate on
their activities, they wouldn't be in the trouble they're in now.
There has to be accountability in the loop somewhere. A tiny
smidgin of oversight beyond the Executive Branch passing judgement
on itself.
As others have pointed out, the FISA court system itself would be
spooky and marginal to the Founding Fathers...it's appalling that
we're hoping to advance our civil liberties to the point where
secret judges are ruling on secret warrants again.
|1.10.06 @ 1:37AM|#
If they are doing what I think they are, the idea of getting
warrants isn't feasible. From my understanding of telecommunication
methods and infrastructure, there's not enough judges to handle all
the requests.
Some background on what's required to wiretap
here. If there are 500 people being watched, multiplied by the
number of calls, switching phones, etc., then add the fact that a
lot of the world's traffic routes through the U.S., it wouldn't be
suprising if innocent people were monitored, warrants or not.
FISA will need to be revisited to keep up with changes in
technology.
|1.10.06 @ 2:05AM|#
I am sorry if iI have neglected to mention before that Eric Lichtblau is a shameless fascist liar. He's probably the one who wanted the story held back for so long.
|1.10.06 @ 2:07AM|#
I am sorry if iI have neglected to mention before that Eric Lichtblau is a shameless fascist liar. He's probably the one who wanted the story held back for so long.
|1.10.06 @ 2:22AM|#
If they are doing what I think they are, the idea of getting
warrants isn't feasible.
That means you add more judges. If for some reason you don't want
to/can't afford that, then you submit the request anyway and then
at least you've tried, and there's some paperwork on record to
record what you've done. In a world where you can get a retroactive
warrants 72 hours after the fact, the fact that there might not be
enough judges to handle the request is no excuse.
|1.10.06 @ 8:17AM|#
Yeah, ain't it surreal that the FISA court is now seen as a step
towards a freer society?
If this administration keeps become more evil and turning things
upside down, in a year I'll be arguing that it would be better to
merely subsidize devil worship, not mandate it. And administration
apologists here will be explaining that maintaining national unity
is crucial in the War on Terror, so we should all draw pentagrams
on our floors and offer blood sacrifices.
I mean, who would have thunk that the largest expansion of the
welfare state since LBJ would occur under unified GOP control of
the government?
Richard Tyler Brandt of Hollan|1.10.06 @ 8:18AM|#
...it wouldn't be suprising if innocent people were
monitored, warrants or not.
That may well be the case, but does not provide an excuse - just
because there's so much intelligence gathering being done that it's
difficult or impossible to do legally doesn't make me feel much
better about it.
|1.10.06 @ 9:05AM|#
The same people who brought you Sarbanes-Oxley, the same people who brought you NCLB, the same people who brought you social security refo...oh, wait.
|1.10.06 @ 9:12AM|#
To the people who look at the War on Terror as being akin to the
Cold War, including the defense of freedom and democracy from a
totalitarian ideology:
Did you ever think you'd end up defending torture?
Did you ever think you'd end up defending holding secret prisoners
in secret prisons?
Did you ever think you'd end up defending warrantless government
surveillance?
|1.10.06 @ 9:13AM|#
...and did you ever think you'd find yourself arguing for the prosecution of journalists because they published stories that maligned the president?
Timothy|1.10.06 @ 9:34AM|#
As others have pointed out, the FISA court system itself
would be spooky and marginal to the Founding Fathers...
I dunno, Jefferson tried to deny Aaron Burr habeas corpus to
convict him of treason. I think executive overreach has been going
on a long while. Thank Marshall for Mabury v. Madison!
|1.10.06 @ 9:59AM|#
There's also a FISC appeals panel to take a look at any warrant requests denied by the main court. This panel has been convened only once and promptly overturned the FISC decision (which had not denied the warrant, only placed certain restrictions upon it.) The numbers I've seen suggest that about 3/100ths of a percent of the total requests have been denied outright (all granted after resubmission in a different form), and about one percent have been modified. This kind of "oversight" barely qualifies as a rubber stamp (and let's not forget the retroactive warrants.)
|1.10.06 @ 10:05AM|#
Peachy--I agree that FISA is barely more than a rubber stamp. What's scary is the government's insistence that even this purely symbolic check on its power should be done away with.
Mike H.|1.10.06 @ 10:32AM|#
I swear. Some of you are as bad as those 'evil' people you rightly malign.
|1.10.06 @ 10:36AM|#
Yes, a slur against "apologists" is probably incorrect. I think the correct term is "collaborators". As in "they collaborated with those who opposed freedom, government by the people and the free press".
|1.10.06 @ 10:39AM|#
Calling them "apologists" implies that they are actually apologizing for the loss of civil liberties. They're not apologizing--they're making excuses and rationalizations.
|1.10.06 @ 10:55AM|#
At the risk of violating my rule against dictionary
debates....
from Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: apol?o?gist
Pronunciation: &-'p䭬&-jist
Function: noun
: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something
I know the pronunciation characters won't display properly. Oh
well.
|1.10.06 @ 10:59AM|#
Thoreau, I don't know if dictionary definitions matter to people who will explain that waterboarding--making someone think he is drowning--isn't really torture.
|1.10.06 @ 10:59AM|#
Jennifer,
To think, you were an English teacher! ;-)
An apologist is not one who apologizes. An apologist explains and
defends the doctrines of a religion or ideology. For instance, I
consider myself to be an apologist for Catholic Christianity, but
that doesn't mean I go around apologizing for things the Catholic
Church has done.
|1.10.06 @ 11:01AM|#
Jennifer,
Would it kill you to admit you were wrong about something, just
once?
|1.10.06 @ 11:08AM|#
Calling them "apologists" implies that they are actually
apologizing for the loss of civil liberties. They're not
apologizing--they're making excuses and
rationalizations.
Look up the definition of the word "imply," Crimethink. Better yet,
drop the subject of definitions altogether. I'm not sure what point
you were even trying to make.
|1.10.06 @ 11:19AM|#
Mike H:
I swear. Some of you are as bad as those 'evil' people you
rightly malign.
Not! Check your premises. And if we rightly malign them, why do you
put the word, evil, in quotes? The folks on this thread don't even
have the capacity to be as bad as people in the government cuz
there's no way we can violate the rights of thousands with
impunity.
|1.10.06 @ 12:00PM|#
"I wish someone would answer the questions Joe asked at 9:12
this morning."
Why? Because his questions were so probing and clever? Aren't his
questions the equivalent of someone asking you:
Did you ever think you'd end up supporting terrorists?
I rarely comment here because it's so disheartening that the most
vocal proponents of my beliefs are also some of the dumbest,
logic-impaired people as well.
But go ahead and keep berating people for "defending torture," that
really promotes an intelligent debate. Here's another ingenious
question, along the same lines, my Christian buddies and I ask it
of pro-choice people, "So you think it's okay to kill babies?"
Haha, we told them!
Joe, Jennifer, Thoreau: I agree with your positions, and admire
your passion, but you are all completely incapable of intelligently
arguing your position.
|1.10.06 @ 12:04PM|#
Aren't [Joe's] questions the equivalent of someone asking
you: Did you ever think you'd end up supporting
terrorists?
No, they are not the equivalent, unless you think "expecting the
government to obey the law and maintain the system of checks and
balances" is equivalent to "supporting terrorists." Whereas Joe's
questions were quite straightforward--people are defending
the government's use of secret detentions and secret prisons.
People are defending warrantless government wiretaps.
|1.10.06 @ 12:19PM|#
ACC--I'm curious as to what part of Joe's question bothers you. Are you saying that people are NOT defending warrantless wiretaps or secret detentions?
fyodor|1.10.06 @ 12:31PM|#
I rarely comment here
you are all completely incapable of intelligently arguing your
position.
Being smart requires more than calling other people dumb.
|1.10.06 @ 12:34PM|#
Being smart requires more than calling other people
dumb.
That point bears repeating on this forum!
|1.10.06 @ 12:37PM|#
Being smart requires more than calling other people
dumb.
No it doesn't, you dummy.
|1.10.06 @ 12:42PM|#
Shem- I don't think that you realize the magnitude of what it is
I believe they are doing.
I'm talking of the order in the thousands of warrants, every day.
FISA won't cut it.
I'm not sure of the means to oversee this program, but Congress
should get on the ball. When Total Information Awareness was
discovered recently, even Poindexter, who headed it, thought that
we should have some kind of minimizing software to weed
out data the government had no business seeing.
|1.10.06 @ 12:44PM|#
Shem- I don't think that you realize the magnitude of what
it is I believe they are doing.
I'm talking of the order in the thousands of warrants, every day.
FISA won't cut it.
So expand the size of FISA, unless you're arguing that it's okay to
erodde civil liberties in order to save time and trouble for the
government.
Rich Ard|1.10.06 @ 12:49PM|#
So expand the size of FISA...
Cognitive dissonance setting in...argh...[choke]
|1.10.06 @ 1:01PM|#
I don't think that you realize the magnitude of what it is I
believe they are doing.
I'm talking of the order in the thousands of warrants, every day.
FISA won't cut it.
Then they are intercepting way too much, and that is what should be
reduced.
I mean, honestly, how many al-Qaeda operatives does our government
believe there are in the United States? Realistically? Thousands
every day? That, I believe, is exactly enough of a reason for
anyone who doubts that this program is excessive to change their
mind.
|1.10.06 @ 1:08PM|#
Cognitive dissonance setting in...argh...[choke]
Point taken, Rich; I'm just pointing out that "getting warrants
takes too much time and trouble" is NOT an acceptable excuse for
eroding civil liberties.
On the other hand, think how much money the government would save
if we didn't have to have all those pesky trials. . . .
|1.10.06 @ 1:11PM|#
So how close to totalitarianism do we have to get before Godwin's Law no longer applies? I have comparisons I'm just dying to make.
|1.10.06 @ 1:12PM|#
James-
Very good point. Thousands of taps per day? Are there that many new
terrorists entering the US every day? Is this supposed to be season
4 of 24, where the dude had dozens of cells and hideouts and a vast
army of thugs?
Even if we go beyond known terrorists to merely suspected
terrorists (which is acceptable with a warrant, since it's
inevitable that cops will investigate leads that don't pan out),
that's a lot of new wiretaps every day.
I can even see going beyond suspects: Maybe a bad guy changes
phones a lot, to make himself hard to trace. But he makes a lot of
calls to his brother (who has no idea what the guy is
really up to, which is very plausible if terrorist
families have even 1% of the denial complex that my family has). So
I can see tapping the brother's phone, as a way of keeping tabs on
the bad guy. Or tapping the phone at the terrorist's place of
employment, to keep tabs on him.
Still, thousands of new suspects with clueless brothers every day?
Did even the Soviets have the resources to send in that many people
every day?
Something doesn't add up.
|1.10.06 @ 1:13PM|#
So how close to totalitarianism do we have to get before
Godwin's Law no longer applies? I have comparisons I'm just dying
to make.
Jake-
Godwin doesn't apply to the Stasi or other Commies.
|1.10.06 @ 1:25PM|#
Godwin doesn't apply to the Stasi or other
Commies.
Is there a transitive property to Godwin? Can you compare to Stasi
or other Commies, and then compare them to Nazis?
Is that legal?
|1.10.06 @ 1:32PM|#
ACC,
"Did you ever think you'd end up supporting terrorists?"
I have never in my life, not even once, supported terrorists. I
have never argued in favor of terrorism, claimed it was necessary
to engage in terrorism, claimed that terrorism was legal and right,
or accused those who oppose terrorism of working to protect evil
people.
On the other hand, it is a daily occurance on this board for people
to argue in favor of torture, to claim that it is necessary to
torture, to defend the legality and morality of torture, and to
accuse those (Amnesty International, me, the NYT) who oppose
torture of supporting Al Qaeda and the Baathists.
No, really not the same thing at all.
|1.10.06 @ 1:37PM|#
Happy Jack,
Let's do a thought exercise. What if, instead of the feds placing
wiretaps on international phone calls, the issue was local police
enterring homes. For some reason - a pretty good reason, on the
face of it - they were doing this hundreds of times a day, way more
often than the local district court judge could handle if each one
was a warrant application.
Would your reaction be to note that there's no way the court could
ever keep up with the case log, so the cops shouldn't need
warrants? Or would it be to opppose having the cops break into
hundreds of homes day after day?
|1.10.06 @ 1:51PM|#
thoreau -
Well, I haven't seen season 4 of 24, so I don't know. But I am a
big fan of The Wire, which tells me that if these guys are even the
least bit smart, they are using prepaid cell phones as burners,
which they use for a week or two and dump.
The real trouble is that none of this really makes sense. Whether
or not we want to pretend that the news of the NSA intercepts was
news to the terrorists, do any of you honestly believe that these
people are stupid enough to say anything worth hearing over the
phone? Does anyone at all think that wiretaps and intercepts will
be how we catch the terrorists? I mean, street corner crack
slingers know enough not to talk about shop on the phone. Does
anyone really think that there is a terrorist out there who will
place the call to say "Ahmed, I have the nerve gas, meet me at the
corner of Park and 59th Street"?
The most significant reason, in my view, to totally distrust this
government and its desire to expand executive authority in the war
on terror is that they have based none of their policy changes on
any substantive explanation of how terrorists operate or how best
to disrupt their activities.
|1.10.06 @ 2:08PM|#
I mean, street corner crack slingers know enough not to talk
about shop on the phone.
And Al Qaeda used to have its training camps in a country run by
heroin traffickers. I'd say they know better than to say too much
on the phone.
|1.10.06 @ 2:10PM|#
But go ahead and keep berating people for "defending
torture," that really promotes an intelligent debate.
There's a strain of people out there who think that topics like
ethics, national character, etc. are somehow impossible to argue
rationally. ...I think this is the suggestion here.
These people are, at best, horribly misguided; at worst, they're
morally handicapped. People don't like to feel like they're morally
handicapped.
...So what?
|1.10.06 @ 2:15PM|#
Well, I'm glad everyone's so down on the dirty
collaborators.
I can presume, then, that I'll see a whole bunch of Congressional
candidates later this year who'll have reversing the
unConstitutional excesses of Bush's admin as a campaign issue? Not,
"Of course I oppose torture and secret detention camps, but...",
but instead, "I will devote my best efforts to undoing X, Y, and
and Z."
Right? This outrage won't vanish (outside of most of us here) when
the next Democratic Congress and/or President gets in?
|1.10.06 @ 2:44PM|#
There's a strain of people out there who think that topics
like ethics, national character, etc. are somehow impossible to
argue rationally. ...I think this is the suggestion
here.
True, but that doesn't explain the animosity toward Joe's question.
He didn't ask "Do you realize that justifying secret detentions is
evil;" he asked "Did you ever think during the Cold War that you'd
be justifying secret detentions."
fyodor|1.10.06 @ 3:34PM|#
Let's do a thought exercise. What if, instead of the feds
placing wiretaps on international phone calls, the issue was local
police enterring homes.
Better yet, what it it were the EPA? :-)
|1.10.06 @ 3:38PM|#
fyodor-
Good point! I'll bet that people making their own bombs are
violating at least a few environmental regulations. And people who
are merely suspected of making their own bombs are suspected of
violating at least a few environmental regulations.
|1.10.06 @ 4:32PM|#
When did joe, Ken Schultz, and Jennifer sign the treaty that
requires them all to post in support of one another on every
thread?
And for the record, I'd like to see where a regular poster (rather
than a one-post troll type) has defended torture, holding secret
prisoners in secret prisons, or warrantless government
surveillance.
In other news, have any of the Tribunal (joe, Jennifer, Ken
Schultz) stopped beating their spouses?
What a load of crap these three are capable of spewing when there's
no one around to call them on it.
|1.10.06 @ 4:39PM|#
ACC:
Did you ever think you'd end up supporting
terrorists?
Did it ever occur to you that governments are the biggest
terrorists extant?
Terrorism is the violent victimization of innocent civilians. Far
more terrorism is committed by our government and governments that
our government gives our tax money to, than has been committed by
recognized terrorist organizations. And there is also the terrorism
that is committed by governments that our government does not give
our money to.
|1.10.06 @ 5:03PM|#
ACC:
Did you ever think you'd end up supporting
terrorists?
Did it ever occur to you that governments are the biggest
terrorists extant?
Terrorism is the violent victimization of innocent civilians. Far
more terrorism has been committed by our government and governments
that our government gives our tax money to, than has been committed
by recognized terrorist organizations. And there is also the
terrorism that is committed by governments that our government does
not give our money to.
|1.10.06 @ 7:30PM|#
rob,
In the very first - THE VERY FIRST! - old torture thread I looked
at, you - YOU, YOURSELF! - were defending waterboarding as an
appropriate policy for our government.
True, you did claim that it wasn't torture, but your little word
games don't matter - you have long argued that our government
should strap people down and subject them to terror and agony in
order to break them, as a matter of policy.
You're pro-torture, rob. If it was somebody you didn't vote for
ordering such crimes, you'd be calling it torture.
|1.10.06 @ 7:41PM|#
Jennifer,
I should probably just let this die, but it was you who quibbled
over definitions, not I. Someone used the phrase "torture
apologist" to refer to those who defend the use of torture, and you
said that calling someone an apologist implies that (s)he is
apologizing, which is not true, any more than calling someone a
principal implies that they are principled.
And it wasn't just me who noticed; thoreau actually called you on
it before I did. As I noted before, you seem to have a problem
admitting your mistakes. Maybe I should attempt a psychological
diagnosis on you, as you did to poor, sweet, innocent Hakluyt but a
few weeks ago.
|1.10.06 @ 8:01PM|#
joe beat me to it. ...This
little ditty came to mind:
Matt,
I totally agree with you on #4. But I think that one or two of
your 4 arguments may have fallen prey (if only glancingly) to your
own statement that "Each phrase is vivid and catchy, totally
agreeable upon first or even second glance..."
For instance, I fail to see what Abu Ghraib abuses mentioned in
your second point, has anything to do with the idea that we might
actually be fighting a foe that has some asymmetrical
advantages...
...
----Comment by: rob at December 1, 2005 06:37 PM
...and as far as joe posting in support of me in every thread, um,
I'm kind of an old school Reaganite from way back--the thought of
joe posting in support of me in every thread is laughable. I think
we agree on goals, for the most part--I want wealth, happiness and
freedom for everyone here in the good ol' USA, and, I think, joe
does too. ...but we differ markedly on strategy. If joe became a
free market, shock therapy, budget axe wielding, Laffer Curve,
foreign policy realist last night, then I apologize.
...but I seriously doubt that happened. ...and the next time
Jennifer takes me to task for something, I'll try to remember that
she always posts in support of me in every thread.
Sometimes it seems like you're comin' around, rob. It's okay to
change your mind. I haven't always known all the things I know now.
...and I know a lot more than I used to for listening to people
that disagreed with me, people like joe and Jennifer, et. al. Say
something persuasive, and I can be persuaded. Check the archives, I
came as a Bush supporter. When's the last time you changed your
mind?
|1.10.06 @ 8:16PM|#
Being smart requires more than calling other people
dumb.
I don't know what it would take for people to call me "smart"; but
if someone called me, "Frank Zappa if he had never gotten laid." in
print, I think that would probably suffice.
|1.10.06 @ 11:52PM|#
joe- you're missing the point.
A good deal of the world's information flows through the U.S. An
e-mail from Egypt to Pakistan is more than likely to traverse our
networks ( it will take the path of least resistance,ie,
efficiency, especially due to time differences).
Just for grins, pretend that you get a warrant for the above
e-mail. After they hit send, it gets chopped up into little pieces.
It then gets mixed with other pieces, like an e-mail from me to
you, and jumps onto the highway. If the NSA grabs everything on
that particular highway to nab their e-mail, then that legal
warrant for Johnny Jihad doesn't prevent the "police" from breaking
into our homes.
Orin Kerr has noted that the leakers seem to be concerned with the
4th Amendment. I would postulate that this is because some of those
pieces of data are identifiers, and some are content. If you've
read the link I gave, notice the Post Office analogy.
New technology is going to require new rules. It's difficult to
separate the wheat from the chaff, because this isn't Ma Bell's
system any longer. Perhaps an algorithm of some sort can minimize
the possibility of being spied on. I don't know. But I don't think
that warrants are a panacea.
|1.11.06 @ 1:18AM|#
I appreciate the idea that new technology requires new
rules--new rules that comply with the Fourth Amendment.
...I also see a big difference between what can be used against
Americans in a court of law and what the government needs to do to
fight a war. Still, why couldn't the President have done that
within the confines of both the Constitution and the law? It
appears that he simply chose to ignore both. ...and if this were
the only instance of the President overstepping his authority, I
suppose I'd be more inclined to excuse it under the theory that he
has the authority to defend us; but this isn't the only instance in
which the President...
It is written:
"Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient Causes;
and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under
absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty,
to..."
I think that's where I am with this President. It's not any one
grievence, at least it isn't anymore; it's a whole slew of
them.
Does the President need to keep us safe from our enemies? ...of
course, he does. Why can't he do that within the bounds of the law?
Was congress a real obstacle to drafting law that would allow the
President whatever he needed?
Does the law need to take into account modern technology? ...Of
course it does, but, once again, I don't think that's the question
here. The President ignored the law and appears to think that he
doesn't need to follow the law--retroactively.
Off the top of my head, I can think of instances in which the Bush
Administration appears to have violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth
and Seventh Amendments. ...all with, more or less, the same claim
of executive power, based on the same need for secuirty... Where
does it end?
|1.11.06 @ 9:04AM|#
I don't recall signing any non-aggression treaty, but if I did
then Joe violated it on the recent MLA thread a couple of days ago.
Shame on you, Joe! Or rather, shame on you, Rob, for only
seeing what you want to see and shutting your eyes to the
rest.
Crimethink, I was going to go through the archives in search of mea
culpas (the one I most remember is when you pointed out that my
refusal to take cold medicine is not what turned a minor cold into
a major illness requiring a doctor visit), but I'm actually more
interested in your psychological evaluation.
|1.11.06 @ 1:07PM|#
Jennifer:
Hmmm... Maybe you guys do squabble now and then, but you sure do
seem to form a pack and all attack the same guy on a lot of
threads.
The bottom line is that joe's questions are all of the "have you
stopped beating your wife" variety, and any attempt on this thread
to point that out saw the three of you singing from the same sheet
of music.
"You're pro-torture, rob." - joe
I'm no more pro-torture than you are pro-terrorist.
The fact that we disagree on what constitutes torture doesn't make
me pro-torture and you pro-terrorist.
"Check the archives, I came as a Bush supporter. When's the last
time you changed your mind?" - Ken Schultz
I guess the difference is that I'm not a Bush supporter and never
have been. I've voted for the guy twice, true, but those votes were
certainly cast in opposition to the other guy rather than in
support of Bush.
"Off the top of my head, I can think of instances in which the Bush
Administration appears to have violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth
and Seventh Amendments. ...all with, more or less, the same claim
of executive power, based on the same need for secuirty... Where
does it end?" - Ken Schultz
There might even be some things on that list we agree on... Care to
share that list in the interests of firing up a lagging thread?
|1.11.06 @ 1:12PM|#
The bottom line is that joe's questions are all of the "have
you stopped beating your wife" variety,
No, they're not, Rob. He specifically directed the questions toward
those people who are arguing in favor of things like
warrantless wiretaps or secret detentions, and simply asking them
if they ever thought they'd be supporting such things back during
the Cold War.
It's a legitimate question; I too have to wonder about people who
think the government should be allowed to imprison people without
evidence, or spy on people without the warrants demanded by the
Constitution, and then insist that they support these because they
support "freedom."
|1.11.06 @ 1:14PM|#
Also, Rob, Joe didn't direct the question at you. So I'm wondering why you reacted so defensively.
|1.11.06 @ 1:43PM|#
Jennifer - Who was he asking those questions of? The right wing
nutjob that exists only in his mind? I'm looking on this thread and
I don't see anyone arguing in favor of that...
You're basically saying that he's asking those questions of people
who actually advocate those things. But no one on this thread has
advocated those things. So who is he asking the question
of???
Well, he claims that he's asking "the people who look at the War on
Terror as being akin to the Cold War, including the defense of
freedom and democracy from a totalitarian ideology," and I'd
probably fit that category.
But, despite wild-eyed, claims to the contrary, and leading
questions along the lines of "have you stopped beating your wife?"
it's the rare troll around here who defends any of the things joe
is asking questions about.
I have yet to see someone other than a troll defend torture,
holding secret prisoners in secret prisons, warrantless government
surveillance or argue for the prosecution of journalists because
they published stories that maligned the president.
But hey, those are valid questions to ask of someone - if you can
find them - who actually supports that nonsense.
Yes, I do believe those people exist, but then in a world where
people join NAMBLA, you can find someone who supports literally
ANYTHING. Just not on this thread...
|1.11.06 @ 1:54PM|#
I don't think I'm being particularly defensive, as I'm certainly
not one of the folks who supports those things...
Even if I do fit the category of people joe describes as "the
people who look at the War on Terror as being akin to the Cold War,
including the defense of freedom and democracy from a totalitarian
ideology."
Problem is, those are two separate groups of people, even if there
is some overlap (as there is between any sensible position and
people who agree with the sensible position AND believe totally
ridiculous things as well.
|1.11.06 @ 2:07PM|#
Rob, there have been many people on threads here who have been supporting what the government has been doing of late. Those are the people to whom Joe addressed his question. There have also been many times wherein Joe, Rick and I have disagreed. Apparently those were all on the threads you didn't see. Either way, your fury at his question was misplaced.
|1.11.06 @ 2:38PM|#
Fury? More like righteous cantankery, if anything.... And it certainly seems reasonably well-aimed as well.
|1.11.06 @ 2:43PM|#
And it certainly seems reasonably well-aimed as
well.
Only if you assume that nobody here has ever defended the
government's actions.
It was a legitimate question. Stop getting so upset over it.
|1.11.06 @ 3:06PM|#
"Only if you assume that nobody here has ever defended the
government's actions." - Jennifer
Uh, actually, HNR tends to be exactly the opposite. And oddly
enough, it's usually joe who's on the pro-gov't side, now that you
mention it.
"It was a legitimate question. Stop getting so upset over it." -
Jennifer
Actually, if he were posting that somewhere else, it might be. But
HNR isn't exactly known for rabid conservatism - neo or otherwise -
much less a lot of posters defending "the G." In this forum, it's
akin to claiming that the overwhelmingly libertarian audience here
is in favor of a lot of draconian BS.
|1.11.06 @ 3:08PM|#
Rob, are you deliberately ignoring what I said before? People here have defended the government's actions, and Joe directed his question to them. Why do you insist on pretending there's more to it than that?
|1.12.06 @ 2:31PM|#
Jennifer,
1. His was a BS question, and I called him on it. That you disagree
because someone (I'm hard pressed to think of anyone other than the
random troll) has espoused the positions he decries with his
question doesn't make it a reasonable question to ask on a thread
where NO ONE has espoused those sentiments.
2. I'm not ignoring what you wrote - you're welcome to believe that
his are the most insightful questions you've ever read - but they
are still BS questions. Why? Because he is asking them of a group
that doesn't support the things he ascribes to them.
3. Those were HIS questions. Let him defend himself if he doesn't
like what I have to say about them.
ultracet _|1.14.06 @ 7:12AM|#
yes.this is my site http://moroz.straponclub.com/ultracet/pain_ultracet_management_acute_analgesic_short-term.html Thanks.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245