How George W. Bush Redefined American Freedom

[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

[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/greenwa...ama/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/greenwa...ies/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 su ion 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, tty 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"?

ing 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 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 cons utes 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 lib s will post crap like this, but not about President Obama carrying the same torch...

[ElNono]

Funny how lib s 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 lib s 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 cons utionally required. We have added laws for farther protections, but laws can be waved aside in ways the cons ution can not. Congress, through the Patriot Act, has changed the laws without removing cons utional 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 horse

Since we obviously differ on what cons utes conservatism, perhaps we can agree that it certainly isn't a "lib " 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 cons utional rights did we lose?

[ElNono]

You don't get it do you.

When there is reasonable cause, a warrant is not cons utionally 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 cons ution can not. Congress, through the Patriot Act, has changed the laws without removing cons utional 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

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 cons ution 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.