Re: Patriot Act against the free exchange of ideas

We don't disagree at all either that some of the Patriot Act authorizations,
and some of the non-authorizations, are at best shots-in-the-dark. We also
don't disagree that it would be much better, all things being equal, or even
not totally equal, to have to get warrants from judges before doing various
kinds of tapping. I am sure that there are elements in the Patriot Act that
are completely unnecessary or unuseful, but by the same token I am sure that
there are probably elements that we will learn, in the future, SHOULD be in
the Patriot Act but aren't because we don't know what is going on to
threaten this country and its interests, and our allies

I am not as sure as you that there are not overwhelming reasons not to go to
a court for certain warrants - there may be issues (and I say may) relating
to disclosure of sources of information, which the government wants to keep
out of any record, including the record of the special courts, in terms of
future prosecutions. I don't know that, but I don't assume that all the
motivation is based on the philosophy of this specific administration. Also,
while you lean towards the philosophy that an aministration that disclosed
more would be preferable, I am not so sure (and incidentally, I am not so
sure that any other administration now would act much differently).

I suspect that the difference between us, and I don't mean this critically
of you, is which administration is doing this, and how each of us "fills in
the blanks" where we can't know what is going on. What I feel is that 1) the
attack on these shores and 2) the nature of the enemy have altered our
freedoms forever. That isn't good, and not what I want, but I think in the
future, looking back, we will see this period of civil liberties as very
much historically determined by our confidence in our physical security from
terrorist threat, and by our ability to identify and destroy any enemy who
threatened us. I don't feel good or happy about this, but I think that the
terms of the debate have changed forever. Do I think there will be a little
quibbling on the margins? Yes - would Democrats want to check what library
books you take out or what books you buy? Probably not, but I don't think
these are important issues, really, and frankly, on this issue, I think the
civil libertarians have made a mountain out of a molehill.

What we have now, to link this to politics, as I always like to do, is still
another opportunity for Republicans to snatch victory from the jaws of
defeat in 08, and maybe even mitigate their looses in 06. You get abolutists
like the ACLU which constantly fight for any kind of infringement of our
abstract (and historically determined, and always-historically-changing)
liberties, and who can't balance that with national security. In the very
short run, they may win a couple of battles, but in the middle run they
lose, because people don't want this kind of absolutism without security. If
the ACLU or the liberals in the Democratic Party could put out REASONABLE
limitations, and ally themselves with security concerns as much as liberty
concerns, we might have something, but they can't and they won't, and
ultimately they lose. We see the same thing, I think, in the Alito
nomination. Here's a guy who is clearly not supportive of giving Roe a blank
check, but he's going to be confirmed, and Democrats are now saying that Roe
is no longer going to be able to be a litmus test for them. The country
moves, but liberals of a certain stripe don't - they are the perpetual
extremists. Incidentally, in terms of allocating power to conduct war and
foreign policy between Congress and the Executive, can you really say that,
looking at the Alito hearings, you have any confidence that those powers
should be more weighted towards Congress?

Best
REG


"Mark D Lew" <markdlew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:170120060142317122%markdlew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <ip3qf.15530$i1.14511@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, REG
> <Richergar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> But it's easier in terms of volunteering one's own life. The question is,
>> Would you think it's ok to lose your neices and nephews in an attack that
>> might have been foiled if security forces had been able to take
>> extraordinary measures?" You may say "Yes", but frankly, I wouldn't wnat
>> to
>> lose my nieces and nephews, or yours, because someone couldn't pursue
>> terrorists to the maximum.
>
> REG, your argument would be hard to answer if one could be at all
> confident that there is any connection between the extraordinary
> measures and actually combatting terrorism. Unfortunately, one can't.
>
> The evidence is very strong that the extra powers the government seeks
> in terms of information control aren't being well used at all. We've
> seen this with the huge increase in classification and secrecy, and now
> we're starting to see it in eavesdropping.
>
> Even if the President's motives are genuine and he really does intend
> to use his powers for good, that's not what happens once power is
> granted in big government. The new policy of government secrecy was
> justified in the name of the war on terror, but the reality today is
> that it is routinely being used for basic cover-your-ass politics.
> That in turn makes the government less accountable and thus more prone
> to tyranny and/or incompetence. Paul O'Neill and John W Dean III (yes,
> the Watergate guy) have both written well on this phenomenon, and James
> Bovard has documented cases extensively. None of those three are
> Democrats.
>
> Elsewhere in this thread, the constitutionality issue has been raised.
> I don't know enough of the details to know whether what Bush is trying
> to do now is constitutional. I do know it's bad policy. The
> administration is asking for additional unchecked powers for an
> executive branch that already has too much. Whether it is the
> President's primary motive or not, those powers will be used to
> buttress and entrench the administration's power.
>
> Those of us who aren't fond of the current administration are more
> alarmed about it than those who are, but it's really a bad idea no
> matter who is in power. This isn't a partisan issue, or at least it
> shouldn't be. It's about the nature of our government. It's about the
> traditional checks and balances and liberties, all those things written
> about by guys like Montesquieu that we read about in high school civics
> class. Do we believe that they really did help make America's
> government better than most other governments, or do we believe that
> they're inconvenient luxury items that we can jettison now that our
> nation faces this new and unique peril?
>
> It's a hard decision to make. Or at least it would be if we really
> were considering a trade-off of liberty against security. But in fact,
> it's a trade-off of liberty against an assurance from big government
> that they really are looking out for our security but unfortunately
> they can't show us any evidence of it because it's too secret.
>
> So yes, let's make the government get their damn warrants. If it
> really is such a big deal for national security, the courts will grant
> the warrant, retroactively if necessary. It's not like judges aren't
> patriots, too. And likewise for the Congress, every time the executive
> branch tries to circumvent them. Why are we being asked to believe
> that only the executive branch cares about national security?
>
> I'm tired of this argument that we need to give official approval to
> things that are wrong 99.9% of the time, just because it might be
> needed in extraordinary circumstances. You can cook up these
> ticking-time-bomb examples where it really will save thousands of lives
> to illegally tap a phone line (or torture a prisoner, or whatever).
> Fine. When that happens, the general in charge is going to say, "Yes,
> I know this is against the law, but in this case it's going to save
> thousands of lives, so I'm going to do it anyway. Even if it means I
> get court-martialed and spend my life in prison, at least I'll know I
> did my duty and saved American lives." Any true patriot would give his
> life in such a situation, and he will do so regardless of what law we
> pass today. But that's no reason to give a free pass to the other 999
> who will simply abuse the power in order to save nobody but their own
> ass.
>
> mdl


.