![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
via Sadly No!:
We knew that the NSA was feeding intercepts to John Bolton (collected from 10,000 US citizens), and recently we also learned that the NSA has been conducting thousands of warrantless wiretaps, which could easily have been obtained legally. Something's starting to smell a bit like an enemies list.
Another question this raises is whether any super-secret Patriot Act detentions stemmed from super-secret, warrantless NSA spying. One reason to set up secret tribunals off the legal grid is, of course, that the evidence shown in them need not be disclosed -- and vice versa, in various interlocking ways. Plus, add torture to the mix, and you have all the necessary parts in place for a classic, functioning apparatus of political...well, 'terror' is such a harsh word. And luckily, we still have posse comita... Um. Otherwise the military...
Just saying. It really makes you step back a pace and think, "Wow, couldn't that be abused in terrible ways in the hands of an irresponsible administration, should one ever come to power."
Amanda at Pandagon takes the argument a bit further:
I suspected that the right wingers would come pouring out to find bullshit justifications for King George's proclamation putting himself above rule of law, and sadly, my suspicions are proving true. I'm incredibly grateful to Scott Lemieux for addressing the hands down most irritating Bush defenders--the so-called "libertarians". I have to admit, I'm disappointed. I always hold out hope that people who dare call themselves libertarians but voted for Bush will once in awhile take substantial pro-liberty positions for kicks if nothing else, but to no avail.
[...]
One of the top 2-3 rhetorical devices on the right is to assume the zero sum game and work out from there. This is, I think, justified by assuming that one is being "realistic" and that anyone who argues for actually improving society is a pie-in-the-sky idealist. Call it creating a false conflict or whatever you want, but it underpins a lot of "hardnosed" conservative arguments.
[...]
Introducing these false conflicts is also an awesome way to get people's eyes off the prize--if people think the debate is about whether national security or civil liberties are more important, they are less likely to notice that these sort of decisions are made without respect to either and instead for the purpose of consolidating power.
And Doghouse Riley posits:
• Bush approved warrantless spying on US citizens.
Excuse me for asking, but this administration believes it doesn't have to obey the laws of the Space-Time continuum; whatever gave anyone the impression they were concerned with what mere words mean?
• New York Times sat on the story for a year before publishing it.
I think I've said this before, but if your car won't start and you take it to a mechanic who finds that the battery is dead and tells you to come back in an hour, and you do but then he tells you the alternator is bad, too, you'd chalk it up to bad luck. If you went there daily for two years and every single time the simple problem had a much more expensive problem behind it you might get suspicious. Why does anyone bother asking Bill Keller for an "explanation" at this point, when the process involves shouting into Karl Rove's pocket so Keller can hear you?
• Keller: "It is not our place to pass judgment on the legal or civil liberties questions involved in such a program ."
That's funny, it seems to me that sitting on the story is the one way you're guaranteed to be passing judgment. I thought your news reporters were highly trained in reporting stories without passing judgment. At least I think that's what I've heard. You can lower the pocket flap now, Mr. Rove. Thanks.
We knew that the NSA was feeding intercepts to John Bolton (collected from 10,000 US citizens), and recently we also learned that the NSA has been conducting thousands of warrantless wiretaps, which could easily have been obtained legally. Something's starting to smell a bit like an enemies list.
Another question this raises is whether any super-secret Patriot Act detentions stemmed from super-secret, warrantless NSA spying. One reason to set up secret tribunals off the legal grid is, of course, that the evidence shown in them need not be disclosed -- and vice versa, in various interlocking ways. Plus, add torture to the mix, and you have all the necessary parts in place for a classic, functioning apparatus of political...well, 'terror' is such a harsh word. And luckily, we still have posse comita... Um. Otherwise the military...
Just saying. It really makes you step back a pace and think, "Wow, couldn't that be abused in terrible ways in the hands of an irresponsible administration, should one ever come to power."
Amanda at Pandagon takes the argument a bit further:
I suspected that the right wingers would come pouring out to find bullshit justifications for King George's proclamation putting himself above rule of law, and sadly, my suspicions are proving true. I'm incredibly grateful to Scott Lemieux for addressing the hands down most irritating Bush defenders--the so-called "libertarians". I have to admit, I'm disappointed. I always hold out hope that people who dare call themselves libertarians but voted for Bush will once in awhile take substantial pro-liberty positions for kicks if nothing else, but to no avail.
[...]
One of the top 2-3 rhetorical devices on the right is to assume the zero sum game and work out from there. This is, I think, justified by assuming that one is being "realistic" and that anyone who argues for actually improving society is a pie-in-the-sky idealist. Call it creating a false conflict or whatever you want, but it underpins a lot of "hardnosed" conservative arguments.
[...]
Introducing these false conflicts is also an awesome way to get people's eyes off the prize--if people think the debate is about whether national security or civil liberties are more important, they are less likely to notice that these sort of decisions are made without respect to either and instead for the purpose of consolidating power.
And Doghouse Riley posits:
• Bush approved warrantless spying on US citizens.
Excuse me for asking, but this administration believes it doesn't have to obey the laws of the Space-Time continuum; whatever gave anyone the impression they were concerned with what mere words mean?
• New York Times sat on the story for a year before publishing it.
I think I've said this before, but if your car won't start and you take it to a mechanic who finds that the battery is dead and tells you to come back in an hour, and you do but then he tells you the alternator is bad, too, you'd chalk it up to bad luck. If you went there daily for two years and every single time the simple problem had a much more expensive problem behind it you might get suspicious. Why does anyone bother asking Bill Keller for an "explanation" at this point, when the process involves shouting into Karl Rove's pocket so Keller can hear you?
• Keller: "It is not our place to pass judgment on the legal or civil liberties questions involved in such a program ."
That's funny, it seems to me that sitting on the story is the one way you're guaranteed to be passing judgment. I thought your news reporters were highly trained in reporting stories without passing judgment. At least I think that's what I've heard. You can lower the pocket flap now, Mr. Rove. Thanks.