How George W. Bush Redefined American Freedom

[admiralsnackbar]

by James Bovard (http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/bios/jxb.asp), Posted December 11, 2009 George W. Bush is gone from Washington but his legacy, like an abandoned toxic waste dump, lingers on. Like President Franklin Roosevelt before him, President Bush helped redefine American freedom. And like Roosevelt’s, Bush’s changes were perversions of the clear vision the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us.
What did freedom mean in the era of George Bush? In Iraq in September 2004, the U.S. military constructed Camp Liberty, a tent compound to house Iraqi detainees next to the Abu Ghraib prison. (The torture scandal and photos had been revealed in late April.) Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller declared that Camp Liberty and other changes in the treatment of Iraqi prisoners were “restoring the honor of America.”
“Camp Liberty” was typical of the rhetorical strategy of the Bush administration: empty words in lieu of basic decency and honest dealing.
From the beginning, President Bush invoked freedom to sanctify his war on terrorism. In his Oval Office address on the night of September 11, 2001, Bush declared, “America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.” He pronounced authoritatively on the motives of the attackers even before the FBI and CIA knew their identities. He never offered evidence that that was al-Qaeda’s prime motivation.
Bush rarely missed a chance to proclaim that the war on terrorism was being fought to save freedom — either U.S. freedom, or world freedom, or the freedom of future generations. In 2002, he proclaimed, “We are resolved to rout out terror wherever it exists to save the world for freedom.” He contrasted freedom and terror as if they were the two ends of a seesaw. Because terror is the enemy of government, government necessarily becomes the champion of freedom. But this simple dichotomy made sense only if terrorists were the sole threat to freedom.
Once Bush proclaimed that freedom was his goal, then all opponents automatically became enemies of freedom. In the first presidential candidates’ debate with Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Bush explained away the fierce opposition to the U.S. military in Iraq: “They’re fighting us because they’re fighting freedom.”
In 1776, “Let Freedom Ring” was a response to the ringing of the Liberty Bell after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In contrast, those attending the 2004 Republican National Convention waved signs proclaiming, “Let Freedom Reign.” That was the phrase that Bush scrawled on a piece of paper in June 2004 when National Security Adviser Condi Rice informed him that sovereignty in Iraq had been transferred to Iyad Allawi, the former CIA operative Bush had chosen to head Iraq’s government. Supposedly, it took only a mere signing of a piece of paper by the U.S. occupation authority for Iraqis to have sovereignty — even though an American puppet remained at the head of the government, and even though U.S. military forces continued bombarding civilians in cities throughout the country.

Military power and freedom
For Bush, military power was practically freedom incarnate. He informed Congress in 2002 that the “Department of Defense has become the most powerful force for freedom the world has ever seen.” In his 2002 State of the Union address, after bragging about victories in Afghanistan, he proclaimed, “We have shown freedom’s power.” In an April 2003 speech to workers at the Army Tank Plant in Lima, Ohio, he declared, “You build the weapons you build here because we love freedom in this country.”
For Bush, the Pentagon budget was perhaps the clearest measure of America’s devotion to freedom. At an April 9, 2002, Republican fundraiser in Connecticut, he bragged that “my defense budget is the largest increase in 20 years. You know, the price of freedom is high, but for me it’s never too high because we fight for freedom.” And if the government seized all of every citizen’s paycheck — instead of only 38 percent of it — and used all the revenue to bankroll foreign military conquests, Americans would have absolute freedom.
Bush often spoke as if all he needed to do was pronounce the word “freedom” and all humanity was obliged to obey his commands. He declared in July 2003 that, because of U.S. military action in Iraq, people were “going to find out the word ‘freedom’ and ‘America’ are synonymous.” Freedom, Iraqi-style, apparently meant giving the U.S. military the right to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians and to obliterate the core of cities such as Fallujah. But the details of U.S. action in Iraq were irrelevant because of the transcendent goal Bush perennially proclaimed.
In his 2004 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Bush declared, “I believe in the transformational power of liberty: The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom.” That was a formal renunciation of much of what America had once stood for. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, warned in 1795, “Of all enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.” But, from Bush’s view, U.S. military aggression is as much a force for liberation as any political or religious ideology ever claimed in the past.

Limiting government power
Bush declared on the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that “there is a line in our time ... between the defenders of human liberty, and those who seek to master the minds and souls of others.” But if the United States claims the right to attack the people of any foreign regime that refuses to swear allegiance to the latest U.S. definition of freedom or democracy, the world will see America as the aggressor shackling the minds and wills of people around the world.
The more nations that America attacks in the name of liberty, the more foreigners will perceive America as the greatest threat both to their peace and self-rule. Not surprisingly, Bush’s policies resulted in a collapse in the world’s respect for the United States.
In the 18th century, “The Restraint of Government is the True Liberty and Freedom of the People” was a common American saying.
But for President Bush, freedom had little or nothing to do with limits on government power. Bush told a high-school audience in 2002, “I will not let — your Government’s not going to let people destroy the freedoms that we love in America.” In a 2003 speech at the Bonaparte Auditorium at FBI headquarters in Washington, Bush declared, “For years the freedom of our people were [sic] really never in doubt because no one ever thought that the terrorists or anybody could come and hurt America. But that changed.” Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge reflected the attitude of the Bush administration when he announced, “Liberty is the most precious gift we offer our citizens.” If freedom is a gift from the government to the people, then government can take freedom away at its pleasure.
Respect for individual rights is the bulwark of freedom. Bush proudly declared in 2003, “No president has ever done more for human rights than I have.” But, in order to defeat terrorists, he claimed the right to destroy all rights by using the “enemy combatant” label. Justice Antonin Scalia rightly noted in 2004, “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.” But this was a luxury that American could no longer afford, at least according to the administration. The Bush administration fought tooth and nail to preserve the president’s boundless power to strip people of all rights on the basis of his mere assertion. The administration continually dragged its feet with respect to obeying Supreme Court decisions that limited the president’s power.
The Founding Fathers sought to protect freedom by creating a government of laws, not of men. But Bush freedom required the president to rise above federal law. The Justice Department advised the White House that the president’s power to authorize torture was not constrained by the federal statute book because of “the President’s inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign against al-Qaeda and its allies.” Justice Department memos from Bush’s first term (released this past March) make it stark that the president’s brain trust believed that the Constitution was as archaic and irrelevant as a covered wagon.
On the home front, Bush freedom meant “free speech zones” where demonstrators were quarantined to avoid tainting presidential photo opportunities. Bush freedom meant allowing the National Security Agency to vacuum up Americans’ email without a warrant. Bush freedom meant entitling the Justice Department to round up the names of book buyers and library users under the USA PATRIOT Act.
Bush freedom was based on boundless trust in the righteousness of the rulers and all their actions. Bush offered Americans the same type of freedom that paternalist kings offered their subjects in distant eras. But Bush’s supposedly lofty intentions were no substitute for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Freedom must not become simply another term for politicians to invoke to consecrate their power. Rather than stirring patriotic pride, Bush’s invocations of freedom should have set off Americans’ warning bells. It remains to be seen how much lasting damage he has done to Americans’ vocabulary and political understanding.
James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1403971080/qid=1086782027/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/104-4161725-1443105?n=507846&s=books&v=glance) [2006] as well as The Bush Betrayal (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140396727X/qid=1086782027/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/104-4161725-1443105?n=507846&s=books&v=glance) [2004], Lost Rights (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312123337/qid=1086782027/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/104-4161725-1443105?n=507846&s=books&v=glance) [1994] and Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403963681/thefutureoffreed/104-4161725-1443105) (Palgrave-Macmillan, September 2003) and serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email ([email protected]).
This article originally appeared in the September 2009 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe (http://www.fff.org/support/index.asp#print) to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.



http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0909c.asp

[EVAY]

I agree that many of the freedoms that Americans had taken for granted prior to 9/11 were trampled under the Bush presidency, and most of them were denied outright through the Patriot Act. That Act was what trampled the right to assembly, to free speech, to privacy within our communications. The American people went along with it out of fear. It was disheartening to see.

It also strikes me that, while all that happened under the 'small government' mantra of a Republican Administration, the Republicans these days are all up in arms over the Democratic intrusions into other choices, i.e., health care, etc.

I think that what you are pointing out is that in America and in Europe as well, what are traditionally known as 'civil liberties' are under attack. And you are right.

[FromWayDowntown]

There is an increasingly prevalent notion that ceding civil liberties is an acceptable path to freedom (or safety) and that concerns for civil liberties in this time and place are either trifling or misguided, since they will frequently require arguing in support of the civil liberties of supposed/suspected terrorists. I don't happen to think that the erosion of civil liberties in the guise of protectionism is an acceptable choice. I also don't think one's right to the protections of long-established civil liberties should depend upon the extent to which the government is willing (or even able) to vilify the target. But I sense that I'm among a dwindling number of people who share those views.

[admiralsnackbar]

There is an increasingly prevalent notion that ceding civil liberties is an acceptable path to freedom and that concerns for civil liberties in this time and place are either trifling or misguided, since they will frequently require arguing in support of the civil liberties of supposed/suspected terrorists. I don't happen to think that the erosion of civil liberties in the guise of protectionism is an acceptable choice. I also don't think one's right to the protections of long-established civil liberties should depend upon the extent to which the government is willing (or even able) to vilify the target. But I sense that I'm among a dwindling number of people who share those views.

While I hope you aren't, I think (as was the case with McCarthyism) that rank-and-file Americans won't take issue with the recent depredations on liberty until enough of them are touched by their aftershocks. As Obama seems to be proving by his inaction on this score, there must be too many political advantages to be harvested from things like the Patriot Act for politicians to freely renounce them.

[Wild Cobra]

While I hope you aren't, I think (as was the case with McCarthyism) that rank-and-file Americans won't take issue with the recent depredations on liberty until enough of them are touched by their aftershocks. As Obama seems to be proving by his inaction on this score, there must be too many political advantages to be harvested from things like the Patriot Act for politicians to freely renounce them.
That's right, show your ignorance with the term "McCartyism."

Maybe you should read up on the facts of who chaired what committee and what committee did what, and also about Project Venona. Maybe next time, you wont use that incorrect term.

[Wild Cobra]

delete accidental double post please

[ElNono]

That's right, show your ignorance with the term "McCartyism."

Maybe you should read up on the facts of who chaired what committee and what committee did what, and also about Project Venona. Maybe next time, you wont use that incorrect term.

Any comments about the article itself?

[admiralsnackbar]

That's right, show your ignorance with the term "McCartyism."

Maybe you should read up on the facts of who chaired what committee and what committee did what, and also about Project Venona. Maybe next time, you wont use that incorrect term.

Maybe you should try to show me why it's relevant to the discussion to list who did what through X agency when "McCarthyism" is a useful shorthand to explain a movement in which American's civil liberties like the right to privacy and free speech were abridged in order for the government to smoke out potential political enemies.

[SpurNation]

Below is a link to an interesting reply to a not so simple question. And as I've noticed over the years...one's compelling nature is as broad according to one's own definition of civil liberties and the guise of it's nature to secure reason for it's implementation.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/frequentlyaskedquestions/f/politicalmap.htm

In the case of aggression against America...who's liberty's should be of more concern regarding a politician's decision in the manner being described? Does national security outweigh individual desire?

I would hope not...but...it's apparent it is according to both past and present leaders. And I don't think what Bush started after 9/11 might have been different than what Obama is allowing now if either didn't think it was. Again...not to say it's acceptable but perhaps neccessary. Just like the killing of people during a time of war. Most would never consider it acceptable to kill...but neccessary to survive.

[admiralsnackbar]

In the case of aggression against America...who's liberty's should be of more concern regarding a politician's decision in the manner being described? Does national security outweigh individual desire?


I agree that it's not an easy question to answer, but it's also worth wondering what is essential to being American. Does America survive by sacrificing the legacy of its constitutional liberties? Is what comes out on the other side still America? If not, who are these actions really protecting, and by what right?

[FromWayDowntown]

I agree that it's not an easy question to answer, but it's also worth wondering what is essential to being American. Does America survive by sacrificing the legacy of its constitutional liberties? Is what comes out on the other side still America? If not, who are these actions really protecting, and by what right?

A lot of rhetoric in the aftermath of 9/11 pinned the impetus for the attacks and the justification for a global war on terror on the premise that "they hate our freedom." Certainly, that was not the sole justification offered, but it was among the more frequently offered ideas. I've never quite understood how fighting a war against an enemy that hates our freedoms by, among other things, voluntarily ceding those very freedoms makes any sense.

[Winehole23]

I've never quite understood how fighting a war against an enemy that hates our freedoms by, among other things, voluntarily ceding those very freedoms makes any sense.It makes sense if people prize physical safety above freedom.

[DarrinS]

:dramaquee


This thread is full of drama.


Someone give me an example of how your freedoms have been trampled in such a way that you notice it in your daily life.

[FromWayDowntown]

It makes sense if people prize physical safety above freedom.

True and my point was a broad generalization. I think there's a fundamental disconnect between couching the war in terms of fighting those who oppose our freedoms and scaling back the freedoms in the effort to prosecute that war. But that disconnect is inconsequential, I think, to those who: (a) believe that civil liberties have escaped some rigid textual origin; and/or (b) would cede liberty to an effort to provide safety. I'm not a proponent of either of those viewpoints, so my skepticism about either is, I'm sure, quite evident.

[FromWayDowntown]

:dramaquee


This thread is full of drama.


Someone give me an example of how your freedoms have been trampled in such a way that you notice it in your daily life.

Why should it be me? I've never had to deal directly with concerns for my First Amendment rights to free speech, free exercise, or free assembly (among others), but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have an opinion when others face such issues, and it doesn't mean that I can't be pissed when those rights are infringed.

It's a relatively small step from it happening to someone else and it happening to me.

[admiralsnackbar]

:dramaquee


This thread is full of drama.


Someone give me an example of how your freedoms have been trampled in such a way that you notice it in your daily life.

I spent about 4 years traveling back and forth between MX City and SA for work, and know for a fact my phone-calls were tapped and my house was put under surveillance during 2006-2007.

[DarrinS]

I spent about 4 years traveling back and forth between MX City and SA for work, and know for a fact my phone-calls were tapped and my house was put under surveillance during 2006-2007.

:rolleyes

[admiralsnackbar]

:rolleyes

If you know anybody involved in international business, it shouldn't be too hard to avail yourself of more stories like mine, I'm sure.

[Winehole23]

Someone give me an example of how your freedoms have been trampled in such a way that you notice it in your daily life.Statutory immunity for telecoms re: warrantless government surveillance of the electronic sensorium already conceals a large number of such violations. If it didn't, no Congressional grant of immunity would have been necessary at all.

Also, something doesn't have to a have widely detectable effect to be dangerous and a bad idea. Take the "unlawful enemy combatant designation." Even in the best case, assuming bona fides and a high level of competence, some innocent people will be swept into the system.

And in some future bummer universe, a corrupt or evil man will use the discretion to remove his political rivals or his personal enemies. Similarly, it is hard to imagine that a government of mortals that has given itself unreviewable discretion to surveil society unreviewably, will remain forever chaste in the face of the temptations this kind of power reveals to them. Whatever remains beyond the ken of courts, can never be restrained by them.

Plus which, the notion that the FISA system was broken or unduly burdensome, or somehow otherwise in drastic need of being replaced or sidestepped, is plainly contradicted by its own record, I think.

The notion that patriotism somehow requires us to part ways with the rule of law and our rights unresentfully, and unsentimentally, is cynical bilge; what the hell were we supposedly fighting for all along, Darrin?

What did our fathers and grandfathers (and even some of our great grandfathers) care so much about, and why did the world so admire it? You seem to rate it as nothing. You single out posters who have stated a wish to preserve the substantive kernel of freedom, for ridicule.

For me rule of law and freedom from arbitrary detention and causeless government intrusion into privacy are a pretty big deal, even if the hanky-panky has been *marginal* to date. I guess pointing out we are losing due process before our very eyes, only sounds like bad campfire strumming to you.

Vive la difference.

Thousands of mistaken or flawed FBI security letters doesn't seem like a marginal deal to me. Just saying.

[boutons_deux]

US govt assuming all citizens are under suspicion of guilt and therefore spy-able "in the name of national security" is just fine with the right-wing-nuts.

"What's the problem, if you have nothing to hide?"

But the US govt must not suspect/regulate businesses for fraud, monopolistic/cartel abuses, shittty products, environmental destruction because, well, The Business of America is Business (and right-wing-nuts are infinitely pro-business, no matter what)

What's the problem with regulating businesses "if they have nothing to hide"?

fucking hypocrites, every last one of them wing-nuts.

[Winehole23]

I think there's a fundamental disconnect between couching the war in terms of fighting those who oppose our freedoms and scaling back the freedoms in the effort to prosecute that war.Yep.


But that disconnect is inconsequential, I think, to those who: (a) believe that civil liberties have escaped some rigid textual origin; Keen.

In this respect, the neocons are postmodernists and abandon all hope of revealing the truth. Instead they complain about the fecklessness of language to grasp...arbitrary detention and torture, for example.


and/or (b) would cede liberty to an effort to provide safety. Done. :depressed


I'm not a proponent of either of those viewpoints, so my skepticism about either is, I'm sure, quite evident.Quite.

+1

[Supergirl]

LOL at the idea that Bush wanted to limit govt's power. His actions demonstrated anything but. He grew the govt enormously while in office. Despite offering empty rhetoric espousing the opposite.

[Winehole23]

LOL at the idea that Bush wanted to limit govt's power. His actions demonstrated anything but. He grew the govt enormously while in office. It must be pretty bad if you've resorted to dredging up Bush 2000 campaign promises. If Bush had actually shrunk the government, he would've been about the first to do it in a very long time, no?


Despite offering empty rhetoric espousing the opposite.Sounds familiar.

Would you say Bush's successor resembles the bolded, SG?

[FromWayDowntown]

Sounds familiar.

Would you say Bush's successor resembles the bolded, SG?

True -- to say that this is a single-party enterprise, in terms of implementation and maintenance of these policies, is laughable. The seizure of additional power by the government and the retention of that power thereafter bears no relationship to party affiliation, it seems.

[Supergirl]

It must be pretty bad if you've resorted to dredging up Bush 2000 campaign promises. If Bush had actually shrunk the government, he would've been about the first to ever do it, no?

Sounds familiar.

Would you say Bush's successor resembles the bolded, SG?

Could we stick to ONE TOPIC per thread please? There are plenty of pro and anti Obama threads. This thread is about Bush and an article about Bush's regime.

[Winehole23]

The question of continuity seems germane to me. History didn't stop when Obama was inaugurated. Obama gets to parse the redefinition and already has.

Has Obama abrogated his own prerogatives as the executive or does he seek to establish and maintain them, using the very same arguments as Bush?

[Wild Cobra]

Any comments about the article itself?
Only that I'm tired of pointless attacks by the left, especially when the authoritarianism of the democrats is real and far more dangerous.

I didn't read the whole article. He's out of office. The current authoritarianism and rights they are taking away are real, and not supported by reasonability.

What freedoms or rights did you lose under President Bush?

[admiralsnackbar]

Only that I'm tired of pointless attacks by the left, especially when the authoritarianism of the democrats is real and far more dangerous.


Considering you've been lecturing people about checking their sources, you should have noticed the OP is from a conservative site.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe you should try to show me why it's relevant to the discussion to list who did what through X agency when "McCarthyism" is a useful shorthand to explain a movement in which American's civil liberties like the right to privacy and free speech were abridged in order for the government to smoke out potential political enemies.
Why? It's been a historical slander against a man who didn't deserve such hatred from the left.

How about learning some facts. McCarthism was dubbed because Murrow had a personal grudge against him, and used his journalistic position to slander a good man. McCarthy was one senator who made a useful statement for propaganda to repeat. It was others who did the damage of that era. Not McCarthy.

HUAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huac)

[Winehole23]

It's a simple yes or no question. The answer should be well known by now.

If for some posters it is not, go check out what Glenn Greenwald says about it.

[Winehole23]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/10/obama/index.html

[Wild Cobra]

I spent about 4 years traveling back and forth between MX City and SA for work, and know for a fact my phone-calls were tapped and my house was put under surveillance during 2006-2007.
Drug enforcement has had those legal abilities for at least a decade before the Patriot Act. Are you blaming President Bush for past laws?

[Winehole23]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/11/24/civil_liberties/index.html

[Winehole23]

Considering you've been lecturing people about checking their sources, you should have noticed the OP is from a conservative site.WC apparently thinks all criticism of Bush is liberal. Criticism from the right he doesn't even notice. Didn't he notice it last fall?

[EmptyMan]

US govt assuming all citizens are under suspicion of guilt and therefore spy-able "in the name of national security" is just fine with the right-wing-nuts.

"What's the problem, if you have nothing to hide?"

But the US govt must not suspect/regulate businesses for fraud, monopolistic/cartel abuses, shittty products, environmental destruction because, well, The Business of America is Business (and right-wing-nuts are infinitely pro-business, no matter what)

What's the problem with regulating businesses "if they have nothing to hide"?

fucking hypocrites, every last one of them wing-nuts.

Generalizing extremes is bad for your health.

[ElNono]

I didn't read the whole article. He's out of office. The current authoritarianism and rights they are taking away are real, and not supported by reasonability.

So, you don't have an opinion.


What freedoms or rights did you lose under President Bush?

See post #15 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3916414&postcount=15) on this thread.

And BTW, even if I did, I couldn't tell you. Or my lawyer. Aren't NSL letters great?

[ElNono]

Drug enforcement has had those legal abilities for at least a decade before the Patriot Act. Are you blaming President Bush for past laws?

Without FISA or a court order? Evidence please.

[admiralsnackbar]

Drug enforcement has had those legal abilities for at least a decade before the Patriot Act. Are you blaming President Bush for past laws?

Unless traveling internationally alone constitutes sufficient probable cause to justify a warrant for surveillance, I'll go with yes (I blame all the people who passed the PA, but Bush, as the act's champion, takes the central lump). My taxes were in order, my record is clean, I didn't/don't associate with criminals. There was no reason to park an electrician's van in front of my house 24/7 for however many months it was.

[Wild Cobra]

Considering you've been lecturing people about checking their sources, you should have noticed the OP is from a conservative site.
Fail...

Maybe you should check...

It's a libertarian site, not conservative!

I'm simply tired of the notion that President Bush is to blame for any encroachment of out liberties. The farthest I'll agree with it is the increased difficulty of travel. Our 4th amendment rights are not absolute. They only protect us from unreasonable actions.

Funny how libtards will post crap like this, but not about President Obama carrying the same torch...

[ElNono]

Funny how libtards will post crap like this, but not about President Obama carrying the same torch...

Actually, I believe the displeasure about this same item with regards to Obama has been repeatedly noted in these very forums. I know I did a long while ago, along with FWD and WH...

[Wild Cobra]

WC apparently thinks all criticism of Bush is liberal. Criticism from the right he doesn't even notice. Didn't he notice it last fall?
Hey, I will criticize the man too on things I think he did wrong.

Still, the original article is not from a conservative site now, is it?

[Winehole23]

Funny how libtards will post crap like this, but not about President Obama carrying the same torch...I reposted Greenwald x2 to that very effect, on this very page. Why not crib from that instead? You know, actually go read something?

Have you finished the OP yet? Read through the posts on the previous page? You exude an unbecoming air of obliviousness, WC, a Mr. Magoo-like diffidence to your surroundings, that reading might be able, sometimes, to dispel.

[Wild Cobra]

Without FISA or a court order? Evidence please.
You don't get it do you.

When there is reasonable cause, a warrant is not constitutionally required. We have added laws for farther protections, but laws can be waved aside in ways the constitution can not. Congress, through the Patriot Act, has changed the laws without removing constitutional protection.

It boils down to reasonable and unreasonable.

[Winehole23]

Still, the original article is not from a conservative site now, is it?The American Conservative has plenty of conservative content.

Because Amconmag has been a dovecote for anti-war conservatives, other conservatives wish to withhold its credentials, despite the clearly conservative bent of almost all its regular contributors.

[admiralsnackbar]

Hey, I will criticize the man too on things I think he did wrong.

Still, the original article is not from a conservative site now, is it?

Way to derail a thread you didn't even bother reading with historical revisionist whining and partisan horseshit :lol

Since we obviously differ on what constitutes conservatism, perhaps we can agree that it certainly isn't a "libtard" critique of the former president.

[Wild Cobra]

I reposted Greenwald x2 to that very effect, on this very page. Why not crib from that instead? You know, actually go read something?

Have you finished the OP yet? Read through the posts on the previous page? You exude an unbecoming air of obliviousness, WC, a Mr. Magoo-like diffidence to your surroundings, that reading might be able, sometimes, to dispel.
I haven't bothered reading the whole thing. I only jumped into this thread when the slanderous term "McCarthyism" was used. What little I did read I see as a biased and unfair view. We didn't lose any freedoms except maybe being improperly identified by a no-fly list. There was nothing remotely similar to the Red Scare, or internment camps of WWII. Even if so, McCarthy only focused on people employed by the State Department. It was a different committee that went after Joe Public.

I don't know about you, but President Bush is now history. Why must people still dwell on him?

Tell me. What constitutional rights did we lose?

[ElNono]

You don't get it do you.

When there is reasonable cause, a warrant is not constitutionally required.

and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation

And I'm the one not getting it?


We have added laws for farther protections, but laws can be waved aside in ways the constitution can not. Congress, through the Patriot Act, has changed the laws without removing constitutional protection. It boils down to reasonable and unreasonable.

So you agree the Patriot Act introduced the abuses we're discussing? I still don't see evidence to the contrary, be it from drug enforcement or otherwise.

[Wild Cobra]

The American Conservative has plenty of conservative content.

Because Amconmag has been a covey for anti-war conservatives, other conservatives wish to withhold its credentials, despite the clearly conservative bent of almost all its regular contributors.
The original article comes from the Future of Freedom Foundation. A libertarian site. Not the American Conservative.

[Winehole23]

Well, fair enough. Amconmag includes some libertarian content. The FFF thing was reposted in Amconmag.

[Wild Cobra]

and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation

And I'm the one not getting it?

That's right. You don't get it. A warrant is not a requirement of a search.

We've argued this before. We haven't changed each others mind yet.

When a warrant is not issued without "oath or affirmation," it means a responsible party must be in knowledge of a crime first. A warrant is an order for a third party to take action. Not permission.

Warrant (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Warrant)

A written order issued by a judicial officer or other authorized person commanding a law enforcement officer to perform some act incident to the administration of justice.
There is nothing in the constitution forbidding a warrantless search. Probable cause is reason enough not to be unreasonable.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Prove to me a warrant is required permission in all cases rather than an order, and you can change my mind.

[Winehole23]

Do you have any topical input, WC, or have you been completely absorbed by the side point?

Calling the OP left-wing and then libertarian does not refute any argument. You show a strong predilection for attacking the speaker instead of his argument, to the exclusion of all argument.

This tactic manufactures endless opportunities for puny triumph, but never touches the ideas. Long run, it's a rhetorical loser.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you have any topical input, WC, or have you been completely absorbed by the side point?

Calling the OP left-wing and then libertarian does not refute any argument. You show a strong predilection for attacking the speaker instead of his argument, to the exclusion of all argument.

This tactic manufactures endless opportunities for puny triumph, but never touches the ideas. Long run, it's a loser.
I haven't read all the whole article, but I have no ill will for the Patriot Act. I disagree with the concept that president Bush embraced the crisis for power and restricting freedoms. I believe he did what he thought was best. I'm not going to waste much of my time defending the man either. As for the "enemy combatant" notation, what else do we call them?

I think the author just took things to extremes, for the purpose of fear. Even if an actual misjustice is found, that happens in law from time to time anyway. No system is perfect. It never will be.

[admiralsnackbar]

Bush freedom was based on boundless trust in the righteousness of the rulers and all their actions.

[ElNono]

That's right. You don't get it. A warrant is not a requirement of a search.

We've argued this before. We haven't changed each others mind yet.

When a warrant is not issued without "oath or affirmation," it means a responsible party must be in knowledge of a crime first. A warrant is an order for a third party to take action. Not permission.

But there's no requirement of a 'knowledge of a crime first' for issuing NSL letters, which intrinsically means it goes against the 4th amendment. Furthermore, you can lawfully challenge a warrant in a court of law. Something that you could not do with a NSL. You couldn't actually seek advice from counsel. The mere disclosure of the existence of the letter was a felony.


Prove to me a warrant is required permission in all cases rather than an order, and you can change my mind.

You made the claim that drug enforcement used warrantless searches without judicial oversight prior to the Patriot act. You got called out on it, and I still don't see any evidence that supports your claim. I'm not going to do your work for you.

[Winehole23]

I think the author just took things to extremes, for the purpose of fear. Even if an actual misjustice is found, that happens in law from time to time anyway. No system is perfect. It never will be.How generous to power. Apparently, WC believes actual injustices should remain bootless. Shit happens, is seriously your take?

Also. you seem to take for granted that Bush had no deleterious effect on the rule of law and civil liberties.

This point, to me, seems taken to an extreme to promote passivity and complaisance in the face of Obama's undue, unbidden -- and during the campaign only apparently forsworn -- expansion of the powers of his own office.

[Wild Cobra]

But there's no requirement of a 'knowledge of a crime first' for issuing NSL letters, which intrinsically means it goes against the 4th amendment. Furthermore, you can lawfully challenge a warrant in a court of law. Something that you could not do with a NSL. You couldn't actually seek advice from counsel. The mere disclosure of the existence of the letter was a felony.

All the patriot act did was expand existing practices in place. NSL's have been used since 1978, under a democrat congress and democrat president. As for the disclosure of an NSL being a felony, that is no longer true.


You made the claim that drug enforcement used warrantless searches without judicial oversight prior to the Patriot act. You got called out on it, and I still don't see any evidence that supports your claim. I'm not going to do your work for you.

No, I made that claim to wire taping.



Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

I spent about 4 years traveling back and forth between MX City and SA for work, and know for a fact my phone-calls were tapped and my house was put under surveillance during 2006-2007.
Drug enforcement has had those legal abilities for at least a decade before the Patriot Act. Are you blaming President Bush for past laws?
The revision added with the Patriot Act, was to include more modern communications. Drug cases are not directly terrorist/war related. I think the warrant is still extensively used unless direct probable cause is witnessed by law enforcement.

[Wild Cobra]

How generous to power. Apparently, WC believes actual injustices should remain bootless. Shit happens, is seriously your take?

Also. you seem to take for granted that Bush had no deleterious effect on the rule of law and civil liberties.

This point, to me, seems taken to an extreme to promote passivity and complaisance.

Well then.

To make sure an injustice never occurs then, by your viewpoint, can I assume we never prosecute anyone?

Yes. Shit happens sometimes.

[admiralsnackbar]

All the patriot act did was expand existing practices in place. NSL's have been used since 1978, under a democrat congress and democrat president. As for the disclosure of an NSL being a felony, that is no longer true.

No, I made that claim to wire taping.

The revision added with the Patriot Act, was to include more modern communications. Drug cases are not directly terrorist/war related. I think the warrant is still extensively used unless direct probable cause is witnessed by law enforcement.

Not that this has any bearing on my case, but the proportion of drug-related uses of the Patriot Act to terrorism-related ones is telling.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/09/28/patriot-act-provision-used-for-drug-cases/

[Winehole23]

To make sure an injustice never occurs then, by your viewpoint, can I assume we never prosecute anyone?No.

By all means terrorists should be tried for their crimes in US federal court. Wherever did you get the idea I wasn't for this, WC?

[mogrovejo]

AmConMag and its writers are as conservative as the John Birch Society or Lindbergh Jr., their spiritual fathers.


The ruinous failing of the ideologues who call themselves libertarians is their fanatic attachment to a simple solitary principle- that is, to the notion .of personal freedom as the whole end of the civil social order, and indeed of human existence.

In those simple minds there is no room to things like the reasonability rule, common-sense and their biggest nemesis, reality.

They live by abstractions. To them liberty is a positive concept - either one crystallized in a text or one that arises from a morally superior one like equality.

Where Burke says that circumstances ought to trump principles, they, in their narrow and limited view of the world and of the human being, see postmodernism.

Any person with a modicum of sanity understands that no liberties - concrete liberties attached to concrete human beings, not some liberties enumareted in a Declaration of Human Rights and similar documents produced by the manquee personality of the ideologist and rationalist mind - are possible in a world where one value is overriding in all contexts. For a libertarian, that person is a proponent of a chaotic relativism according to which all values are in the end arbitrary. For a progressive, that person is a reactionary who needs to be indoctrinated in order to understand how their specific brand of values is the only justifiable one (or, in other words, how dogmaticism is indeed "liberalism").

The obsession of those who share the big tent of ideology - progressives, socialists, libertarians, fascists, etc. - with Bush (a president who wasn't remarkably worse than most of his predecessors and was better than many of his successors) shouldn't deserve more than scorn and pity. Except from psychiatrists, I guess.

[mogrovejo]

It boils down to reasonable and unreasonable.


Again...not to say it's acceptable but perhaps neccessary. Just like the killing of people during a time of war. Most would never consider it acceptable to kill...but neccessary to survive.

Yeps.

[Winehole23]

They live by abstractions. To them liberty is a positive concept - either one crystallized in a text or one that arises from a morally superior one like equalityIt is preserved in custom and national lore. That is no abstraction.

[ElNono]

All the patriot act did was expand existing practices in place. NSL's have been used since 1978, under a democrat congress and democrat president.

What? Prior to the Patriot Act, NSL's were restricted to non US citizens/residents and there were no penalties for not complying with the order.



As for the disclosure of an NSL being a felony, that is no longer true.

Sure, after somebody sued and that section was struck down as unconstitutional. A case that sadly it's still ongoing.

[admiralsnackbar]

No.

By all means terrorists should be tried for their crimes in US federal court. Wherever did you get the idea I wasn't for this, WC?

I'm beginning to get the feeling that if your opinion in any way deviates from his, he reflexively assumes you must be positing the most extreme opposite of his position, even if that position would only be held by a maroon.

[Winehole23]

Where Burke says that circumstances ought to trump principles, they, in their narrow and limited view of the world and of the human being, see postmodernism.You're an epigone (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/epigone?view=uk) of Burke. We get that. Just because the President's principles got run over by the circumstances doesn't necessarily mean we should abide the circumstances.

[Winehole23]

Any person with a modicum of sanityYou make agreement with you a hallmark of sanity, and disagreement a diagnosis. Telling. Talk about egophanic.


understands that no liberties - concrete liberties attached to concrete human beings, not some liberties enumareted in a Declaration of Human Rights and similar documents produced by the manquee personality of the ideologist and rationalist mind - are possible in a world where one value is overriding in all contexts.They still exist, albeit in somewhat attentuated form, in the USA. You assume concrete liberties do not exist. Either they already have been eliminated or they were never possible in the first place, in theory.

You're wrong about that, in practice.

Are you suggesting there's no substantive difference between US due process and that of say, Egypt?

[Wild Cobra]

Not that this has any bearing on my case, but the proportion of drug-related uses of the Patriot Act to terrorism-related ones is telling.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/09/28/patriot-act-provision-used-for-drug-cases/
Well, it happens real often that the black and white of a law will be used for other than marketed for. The same thing happens when we vote for laws and politicians.

At least they were warrants for law enforcement purposes.

[Winehole23]

I'm beginning to get the feeling that if your opinion in any way deviates from his, he reflexively assumes you must be positing the most extreme opposite of his position, even if that position would only be held by a maroon.I used to think this was a function of laziness and low-information. But of late mogrovejo has shown us, over and over again, that even highly educated and otherwise thoughtful posters are susceptible to this conceit. They cannot resist exaggerating their adversaries.

[Wild Cobra]

What? Prior to the Patriot Act, NSL's were restricted to non US citizens/residents and there were no penalties for not complying with the order.

Well, if wiki is correct, that restriction was relaxed in 1993.

Hmmm... democrat congress and democrat president...

Sure, after somebody sued and that section was struck down as unconstitutional. A case that sadly it's still ongoing.
Sure, but even before that, previsions were included in the letter.

Did you read the example letter in wiki on the subject? It is drafted by the 2001 changes. How about this sentence:

In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3511(a) and (b)(1), you have the right to challenge this letter if compliance would be unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful and the right to challenge the nondisclosure requirement set forth above.
If I am reading things right, this is the letter sent to the ISP that sued.

[ElNono]

Well, if wiki is correct, that restriction was relaxed in 1993.
Hmmm... democrat congress and democrat president...

Nope.

Once passed in 2001, section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act greatly expanded the use of the NSL, allowing their use in scrutiny of US residents, visitors, or US citizens who are not suspects in any criminal investigation. It also granted the privilege to other federal agencies, presumably to allow the department of Homeland Security the same ability to use NSLs. In January 2007 the New York Times reported that both the Pentagon and the CIA have been issuing National Security Letters. [3] The USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization statutes passed during the 109th Congress added specific penalties for non-compliance or disclosure.



Sure, but even before that, previsions were included in the letter.

Did you read the example letter in wiki on the subject? It is drafted by the 2001 changes. How about this sentence:

If I am reading things right, this is the letter sent to the ISP that sued.

You're reading it wrong. The ISP that was sued is an 'unknown entity', since their case is still ongoing, and thus still governed by the rule of secrecy.
Even the 2007 amended version of the law was struck down as unconstitutional, just because of the lack of implicit right to due process.

Here... Doe vs Ashcroft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Ashcroft)

[Winehole23]

The obsession of those who share the big tent of ideology - progressives, socialists, libertarians, fascists, etc.Throwing another skunk in the well, hey? :rollin

[mogrovejo]

You assume concrete liberties do not exist. Either they already have been eliminated or they were never possible in the first place, in theory.

You're wrong about that, in practice.

Are you suggesting there's no substantive difference between US due process and that of say, Egypt?

Why do you say I assume concrete liberties do not exist? No, I don't think I'm wrong. No, I'm not suggesting such a thing.

[Winehole23]

no liberties - concrete liberties attached to concrete human beings, not some liberties enumareted in a Declaration of Human Rights and similar documents produced by the manquee personality of the ideologist and rationalist mind - are possible in a world where one value is overriding in all contexts.If this is not a theoretical negation of liberty, what is it?

[mogrovejo]

If this is not a theoretical negation of liberty, what is it?

It's the assertion that liberties are possible in a world where no value is overriding in all contexts.

[Winehole23]

That was a rather elliptical way to put it, don't you think?

[TeyshaBlue]

Could we stick to ONE TOPIC per thread please? There are plenty of pro and anti Obama threads. This thread is about Bush and an article about Bush's regime.

Translated: Bush did it. Can't we just wail on Bush? :lmao:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

Nope.

Once passed in 2001, section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act greatly expanded the use of the NSL, allowing their use in scrutiny of US residents, visitors, or US citizens who are not suspects in any criminal investigation. It also granted the privilege to other federal agencies, presumably to allow the department of Homeland Security the same ability to use NSLs. In January 2007 the New York Times reported that both the Pentagon and the CIA have been issuing National Security Letters. [3] The USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization statutes passed during the 109th Congress added specific penalties for non-compliance or disclosure.



You're reading it wrong. The ISP that was sued is an 'unknown entity', since their case is still ongoing, and thus still governed by the rule of secrecy.
Even the 2007 amended version of the law was struck down as unconstitutional, just because of the lack of implicit right to due process.

Here... Doe vs Ashcroft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Ashcroft)

Thanks for the Doe v Ashcroft link. :toast I was trying to figure out how to pull that outta Google...with little success.:bang

[DarrinS]

I think most of these threads can be summed up as follows


7MaJLbJDuAc

[Marcus Bryant]

Sooner or later the "conservatives" of today will figure out that a permanent war footing is not conducive to their erstwhile dreams of a small, limited government.

[Winehole23]

Nothing in the whole three pages attracted your attention, so you're gonna youtube it again.

How pat.

How ruthlessly DarrinS of you, DarrinS. Just youtube us again. Of course that's what you'd do.

[Marcus Bryant]

Actually, the conservatives of today are carrying the mantle of Woody Wilson and FDR.

The end of the Revolution was to be the freedom for individual greatness, not national greatness. Or national greatness would follow from maximum personal liberty. Wilson hated the constitution, but perhaps not as much as GWB.

[Winehole23]

I think most of these threads can be summed up as follows
7MaJLbJDuAcI was going to compare you to a household pet, and suggest that you hear only intonation. But then it occurred to me: you don't even get the tone right. The pet comparison ends up being an insult to dogs and cats, or something like that.

En serio, Darrin: you really think the Keith Olberman mashup is a good condensation of the thread? (Fess up: did you even read it? Pardon me, but you don't show any outward signs that you did. )

[Winehole23]

Bad campfire strumming surges into the darkened world

[Winehole23]

HMrqBldlqzA

[mogrovejo]

Actually, the conservatives of today are carrying the mantle of Woody Wilson and FDR.

The end of the Revolution was to be the freedom for individual greatness, not national greatness. Or national greatness would follow from maximum personal liberty. Wilson hated the constitution, but perhaps not as much as GWB.

Exactly, American revolutionaries fought a war to protect their liberties. Sometimes war is the best course of action.

[Winehole23]

Exactly, American revolutionaries fought a war to protect their liberties. Sometimes war is the best course of action.Without any doubt.

In Obama's case it appears to be the least shitty option; his predecessor freely chose it. Whether it is the best course or not, is matter of reasonable dispute until the results be clear.

[Winehole23]

Welcome to Gitmo North (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/15/gitmo/index.html)

By Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/15/gitmo/md_horiz.jpg (AP/M. Spencer Green
A sign stands in the snow outside the Thomson Correctional Center, Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009, in Thomson, Ill.




The Obama administration announced today (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/15/gitmo/gitmo.pdf) that it will create a new "supermax" facility in Thomson, Illinois, and will transfer to it many of the detainees currently held at Guantanamo. Critically, none of those moved to Thomson will receive a trial in a real American court, and some will not be charged with any crime at all. The detainees who will be given trials won't go to Thomson; they'll be moved directly to the jurisdiction where they'll be tried. The ones moved to Thomson will either (a) be put before a military commission or (b) held indefinitely without charges of any kind. In other words, they'll have exactly the same rights -- or lack thereof -- as they have now at Guantanamo.





Continue Reading (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/15/gitmo/index.html)


William Lynn, Obama's Deputy Defense Secretary, sent a letter today (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/15/gitmo/lynn1.pdf) (.pdf) to GOP Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, answering multiple questions Kirk had posed, and made clear that all Thomson detainees will either have military commissions or indefinite detention without charges; none will get real trials (click images to enlarge):
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/Syfu0JfwYYI/AAAAAAAACQw/q9VDWQOR2rM/s400/lynn1.png (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/Syfu0JfwYYI/AAAAAAAACQw/q9VDWQOR2rM/s1600-h/lynn1.png) http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SyfuwMfLSHI/AAAAAAAACQo/WZg9i4n6gMc/s400/lynn2.png (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SyfuwMfLSHI/AAAAAAAACQo/WZg9i4n6gMc/s1600-h/lynn2.png)
The administration has already announced that it will rely on the Bush/Cheney theory to justify its indefinite detention power (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us/politics/24detain.html?hp) -- that Congress implicitly authorized that when it enacted the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force. But because Congress has banned the transfer of any Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. for any reason other than to be tried in a court, the administration will now seek express legal authority (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/obama-administration-to-seek-legal-authority-to-house-candidates-for-indefinite-detention-at-thomson-prison.html) to transfer detainees inside the U.S. to hold them without charges indefinitely. Former White House Counsel Greg Craig said back in February (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/02/23/090223fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all) that it's "hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law." One no longer needs to "imagine" it; it's soon to come.


Particularly Orwellian was Lynn's response to Kirk's inquiry about which detainees will be given the gift of an actual trial:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/Syfvm9_JWBI/AAAAAAAACRA/i2ba84GmHoc/s400/lynn3.png (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/Syfvm9_JWBI/AAAAAAAACRA/i2ba84GmHoc/s1600-h/lynn3.png)
How perverse. Lynn is right that prosecutions traditionally occur only "when admissible evidence or potentially available admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." But traditionally, what happens when such evidence is insufficient is not that the state just imprisons them anyway with no trial or puts them before some less rigorous tribunal; what's supposed to happen when the state cannot convict someone is that the individuals are not charged and therefore not imprisoned. But here, the Obama administration is turning that most basic principle on its head: only those who it knows it can convict will get trials, but the rest will be shipped to Thomson -- Gitmo North -- to be put before a military commission or simply imprisoned without charges of any kind.



The sentiment behind Obama's campaign vow to close Guantanamo was the right one, but the reality of how it's being done negates that almost entirely. What is the point of closing Guantanamo only to replicate its essential framework -- imprisonment without trials -- a few thousand miles to the North? It's true that the revised military commissions contain some important improvements over the ones used under Bush: they provide better access to counsel and increased restrictions on the use of hearsay and evidence obtained via coercion. But the fundamental elements of Guantanamo are being kept firmly in place. What made Guantanamo so offensive and repugnant was not the fact that it was located in Cuba rather than Illinois. The primary complaint was that it was a legal black hole because the detainees were kept in cages indefinitely with no charges or trials. That is being retained with the move to the North.


There is, I suppose, symbolic value in closing Guantanamo. But what made Guantanamo such an affront to basic liberty and the rule of law was far more than symbolism, and it certainly had nothing to do with its locale. If anything, one could argue that it's now more dangerous to have within the U.S., on U.S. soil, a facility explicitly devoted to imprisoning people without charges. Even worse, by emphasizing that Thomson will be an even more "secure" supermax than the utterly inhumane hellhole at Florence, Colorado (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande) -- even boasting that it will be the most secure prison "of all time" (http://twitter.com/markknoller/status/6707012338) -- it's likely that individuals who have never been charged with any crime will be held indefinitely in a facility even worse than Guantanamo.
Are we really supposed to believe that the Muslim world -- at whom this symbolism is supposedly aimed -- is so simplistic that they'll be happy because Muslims are now being indefinitely imprisoned with no charges in Illinois instead of on a Cuban island? In many ways, this move is classic Obama: pretty words, rhetorical appeals to lofty ideals, self-congratulatory preening, accompanied by many of the same policies that were long and vehemently condemned by him and most of his supporters.

UPDATE: ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero had this to say today:


The creation of a "Gitmo North" in Illinois is hardly a meaningful step forward. Shutting down Guantánamo will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its lawless policies onshore.
Alarmingly, all indications are that the administration plans to continue its predecessor's policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location. Such a policy is completely at odds with our democratic commitment to due process and human rights whether it’s occurring in Cuba or in Illinois. In fact, while the Obama administration inherited the Guantanamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies.
It's hard to argue with that.

[mogrovejo]

So, the Democrats problem with Gitmo was strictly geographical? Why did they make such a big fuss about it?

[Winehole23]

So, the Democrats problem with Gitmo was strictly geographical? Why did they make such a big fuss about it?Perhaps it was electorally expedient to do so.

[mogrovejo]

Perhaps it was electorally expedient to do so.

What do you mean by that? Do you mind to clarify?

[Winehole23]

I'd rather not. You don't really mean it. You understood me.

[mogrovejo]

I'd rather not. You don't really mean it. You understood me.

I didn't. You can certainly explain what you meant, instead of suggesting I lack sincerity.

[Winehole23]

I didn't. You can certainly explain what you meant, instead of suggesting I lack sincerity.Suggesting? I believe I went far past that.

Me slamming the Dems for political opportunism has apparently dazed you. So, thank you for giving me the opportunity to reiterate my opinion, as well as to dispel any lingering doubts you might have as to what I said.

[mogrovejo]

Suggesting? I believe I went far past that.

Me slamming the Dems for political opportunism has apparently dazed you. So, thank you for giving me the opportunity to reiterate my opinion, as well as to dispel any lingering doubts you might have as to what I said.

I still have the doubts, but you seem resolved to not clarify your statement. It's a right of yours. It seems you're more comfortable demanding the same thing from others, but you're not so prone to apply the same standards to you. The only thing that could daze anyone would be the extent of your hypocrisy, but fortunately I'm not easily impressed. In any case, with your refusal to further explain your thoughts we can put an end to this discussion.

[Winehole23]

Me slamming the Dems for political opportunism Is not clear in the context of your foregoing question?

[Winehole23]

(Ripped on mogrovejo)

[Wild Cobra]

So, the Democrats problem with Gitmo was strictly geographical? Why did they make such a big fuss about it?
I think they were jealous that the detainees were in a tropical resort. Maybe they will make it into the little capitol, and relocate.

[ElNono]

I think they were jealous that the detainees were in a tropical resort. Maybe they will make it into the little capitol, and relocate.

They sure were getting better health insurance than the average american and for a lot less dough...

[spursncowboys]

They sure were getting better health insurance than the average american and for a lot less dough...
Just because they weren't paying the bill doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Wild Cobra]

They sure were getting better health insurance than the average american and for a lot less dough...
Yep, they don't have to deal with lawyers.