A Message For The Civil Liberty Hysterics
I join in with Rick Moran’s message to the civil liberty scaremongers like Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU that have been crying about our loss of freedoms, NSA paranoia, and comparing Bush to Hitler.
Well pardon my French, but the only thing I have to say to the gaggle of goofs who have spent much of the last two years in formulating some of the most vile, calumnious, and over the top charges regarding the Administration’s cavalier attitude toward our civil liberties is… BITE ME:
Here is what its all about.
After a delay of more than a year, a government board appointed to guard Americans’ privacy and civil liberties during the war on terror has been told the inner workings of the government’s electronic eavesdropping program.
The briefing for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board had been delayed because President Bush was concerned—after several media leaks—about widening the circle of people who knew exact details of the secret eavesdropping program.
The board, created by Congress and appointed by Bush, focused on other classified work since it was named in spring 2005, but continued to press for a formal briefing by the National Security Agency.
A breakthrough was reached in recent days, and the five members were briefed by senior officials last week.
Board members said that they were impressed by the safeguards the government has built into the NSA’s monitoring of phone calls and computer transmissions, and that they wished the administration could tell the public more about them to ease distrust.
“If the American public, especially civil libertarians like myself, could be more informed about how careful the government is to protect our privacy while still protecting us from attacks, we’d be more reassured,” said Lanny Davis , a former Clinton White House lawyer who is the board’s lone liberal Democrat.
And let us also put to rest perhaps the most ridiculous charge of all; that the President and his people simply didn’t care about the Constitution:
“We found there was a great appreciation inside government, both at the political and career levels, for protections on privacy and civil liberties,” said Raul, author of a book of civil liberties. “In fact, I think the public may have an underappreciation for the degree of seriousness the government is giving these protections.”
The hysteria surrounding this program might finally start receding, as long as these remarks get some significant play. After all, having a former Clinton aide wish he could reveal more about a secret program to reassure people of the good work done by it rather than to torpedo the Bush administration should raise some eyebrows among the paranoid. Former Reagan counsel Alan Raul went even further, telling John Solomon that he believes that the public underestimates the level of concern and dedication for civil liberties in the federal government.
Once again, the public’s support for a tough but necessary program has been reinforced by its careful execution by the NSA. This should not surprise anyone, as even the New York Times acknowledged that they had no information that the agency broke any laws or violated anyone’s civil rights when they broke the story. All they had were “concerns” about the program’s legality from their anonymous tipsters.
So, once again…sound and fury signifying nothing. And we’ll see the NY Times with a big headline on this assessment on page one, above the fold, right? Brian Williams will lead with this story, right? Maybe at least Jon Stewart will bring it up?
Now all of you…do you really think a little truth will get in the way of the tin foil hat wearing brigades like the ACLU and Glenn Greenwald? Paranoia is what their world is made of. The conspiracies will just have to be modified a bit. Thats all. Nothing they can’t handle with a few fancy word twists. I sure wish it would shut up their whining though. I’m way past tired of hearing it all.
Rick sums it all up better than I can, go read his entire post.
Email This
Posted by Jay on November 29, 2006 5:42 pm
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL:
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator: Board Impressed By Wiretap Safeguards
- Doug Ross @ Journal: Don't hold your breath
- Blue Crab Boulevard: About That NSA Program
Comments
16 Responses to “A Message For The Civil Liberty Hysterics”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I really want to be convinced, but I’m not, yet. My doubt remains because of one phrase:
I need to know that a thorough review of the actual implementation comes out clean. Policy papers are nice and they are a good sign, but they don’t necessarily bear any correlation to the actual implementation.
“Paranoia is what their world is made of.”- Jay
“I need to know that a thorough review of the actual implementation comes out clean. Policy papers are nice and they are a good sign, but they don’t necessarily bear any correlation to the actual implementation.” -Jeff Molby
Seems like Jeff might be proving Jay’s point.
Says he with a nom de plume…
I’m definitely skeptical by nature, but I’m not paranoid. If you wanted to, you could have my home address and phone number in five minutes. That’s not the mark of a paranoid man.
To elaborate further…
It is possible to convince me that the government isn’t throwing away my liberties. It hasn’t happened yet, but I can tell you exactly the conditions under which it would happen.
It all starts with transparency. Let an unbiased group of qualified individuals examine the actual workings of any relevant programs over a period of time.
It’s easy to write a policy paper that respects liberties. It’s also easy to clean up your act for a short period of time. I’ll be convinced when a thorough review of actual events is concluded.
I sincerely hope the day comes when we can point back to this comment and discuss whether or not the conditions have been met.
If this is in the area of foreign policy as is claimed then such checks on the system do not necessary have to exist. You are stating that you believe this might be extended into domestic policy and you want assurances it is not being. What kind of assurances will you accept?
Well, if we’re talking about phone calls and phone records, how could it not extend into domestic policy? We’re not talking about calls from Afghanistan to Aghanistan.
If we’re able to pull that off, I’m all for it. But I’m pretty confident that we’re talking about calls that involve at least one person on American soil.
I only need one thing:
A judicial body that has the authority to stop an investigation if the agency fails to demonstrate probably cause.
We can negotiate the actual composition and mechanics, but the above condition is non-negotiable.
That’s not the mark of a paranoid man.
Nor a prudent one. ;^)
I only need one thing:
A judicial body that has the authority to stop an investigation if the agency fails to demonstrate probably cause.
That would be the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Probably not. I was hoping you wouldn’t be online today, Lobo. =P
Those would be legislative bodies and, while they do perform some meaningful oversight, I don’t believe the have the authority to satisfy my condition.
Those would be legislative bodies and, while they do perform some meaningful oversight, I don’t believe the have the authority to satisfy my condition.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review
Senate Judiciary committee
In April of each year, the Attorney General transmits a report to the Administrative Office of the United States Court and to Congress.
The Attorney General reports to the Congressional Committees(the two I mentioned above), Congressional Committees report to congress.
FISA is a wonderful bit of legislation. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is of the opinion that his programs don’t fall under FISA, so that court doesn’t even get to weigh in. If he changed his position on this, most of my concerns would go away.
The committees, on the other hand, are legislative bodies that can’t do much more than hold hearings and recommend legislation. I suppose congress could pass a bill that says “You don’t have probable cause to eavesdrop on Joe Sixpack. Leave him alone.” but this is so monumentally unlikely.
The committees, on the other hand, are legislative bodies that can’t do much more than hold hearings and recommend legislation.
Let’s try this again…The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review
Senate Judiciary committee
In April of each year, the Attorney General transmits a report to the Administrative Office of the United States Court and to Congress.
The Attorney General reports to the Congressional Committees(the two I mentioned above), Congressional Committees report to congress.
You asked for “judiciary” I gave you both, and they are working together with the Executive branch.
Yeah. Their job is to review denials of applications for electronic surveillance warrants. If the NSA never requests a warrant from FISC, there’s never a denial for FISCR to review. As I said, if this process was being used, most of my concerns would go away.
Yeah, it’s composed of senators. Their job may be to focus on judicial issues, but they’re still just senators and this still only have the power to hold hearings and recommend legislation.
Yeah, he’s a member of the administration. If his report said anything other than the administration’s official position, he would find himself unemployed in short order. Besides, he probably signed off on most or all of the programs.
The only that qualifies as judiciary is The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and it is being sidestepped.
The only that qualifies as judiciary is The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and it is being sidestepped.
It is not sidestepped at all.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html
What Bush took exception to, were acouple FISA Judges that took it upon themselves to divulge classified and court documents. They have both, since resigned.
I didn’t say it was being ignored altogether. I am aware that over 2000 warrants were applied for and issued in 2005. 1700+ in 2004. Etc. Etc.
What hasn’t been released is a count of the warrantless eavesdropping that has occurred since 2002.
On that off chance that you’re unfamiliar with the program, here is a pretty thorough review of what we do know:
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/23279res20051229.html
You despise the ACLU, so no doubt you’re willing to dismiss everything they say. That’s fine, read the President’s words:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html
Of course, he’s not stupid enough to say “heck no, we’re not bothering with warrants.”, but it’s easy to see what he left out. He spends a couple paragraphs at the end talking about all of the people who regularly reviewed the program. Most of those people report to him. None of those people are judges.
What hasn’t been released is a count of the warrantless eavesdropping that has occurred since 2002.
your own link would explain that…
“This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.
Most of those people report to him. None of those people are judges.
“The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials,”
He wasn’t exactly being all inclusive either.
The fact is, Bush is the most monitored person in the world. Everything he does and says and everywhere he goes, is recorded.
There are enough liberals, socialists/marxists in government to keep their people informed of all of the above.
There are enough agencies, courts, committees and legal institutions to oversee what needs to be.
Of course. I didn’t mean to imply that we should know all the statistics about such a program. I was merely trying to refute that the implication that the number of cases that are brought before FISA courts is in any way relevant to the number of cases that aren’t.
Huh? That phrase is so broad as to include virtually everyone in Washington.
Look, it comes down to this: The press has been using the phrase “warrantless eavesdropping” constantly for over a year now.
Find me one instance of the administration specifically refuting this allegation and I will reconsider the inference that I draw from their frequent vagueness on the subject.