Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Watchtower
I note that the ACLU has backed groups such as the Nazis at Skokie. They are among the most idealistic organizations around, and are perfectly willing to tweak the partisan politics of many of their own backers when they see any inconsistency or hypocracy on first amendment and civil rights issues.

I'm very proud of my ACLU. They're the kind of people Jehovah's Witnesses, Telemarketers, Conservative Shock-Jocks, Nazis and other discrete and insular minorities can count on.

You must be stuck in a time warp.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=1594302(spree: NPR audio link dated 1/12/2004 The Justice Department says the controversial USA Patriot Act provides invaluable tools to track down terrorists and prevent any future attacks. But since it was quickly passed into law just over two years ago, the Patriot Act has also been used in other types of criminal cases -- everything from fraud to political corruption probes. NPR's Jackie Northam reports.)

I think this is a red herring. (I've never actually seen a red herring, and it doesn't sound very appealing at all.) Back when they were passing the PA, the point was made, repeatedly, that this was an extension of existing tools to the purpose of anti-terrorism. The great conservative Joe Biden put it this way (I found one quick quote here) - “the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What’s good for the mob should be good for terrorists.” (Cong. Rec., 10/25/01).

In other words, what NPR was complaining about was the use of methods and tools that were already there pre-PA - the only difference was, one could now claim "terrorism" and get the warrants.

(Forgot my last sentence.) So, just because cops are using powers that are now outlined in the PA in no way means that they are using new tools that they didn't have before. This is form over substance.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Put aside these guys,

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln . . .

Let's start there: the war on terrorism. Put aside the foreign POWs taken to a "non-US location". Let's look at folks in the US:

DOJ has denied representation to several suspects thought to be associated with terrorists. It has denied at least one an opportunity to interview a witness who purports to have evidence to exonerate him. But lets move past our concerns about terrorists, because we know it's okay to deprive criminals of rights, because, after all, they're criminals.

Meanwhile, the US Patriot act enacts significant authority to spy on US citizens, in their libraries, through wiretaps, and so forth.

Or shall we talk about efforts to federalize limitations on civil liberties that states have sought fit to enact: medical marijuana use in California; a "right" to die in Oregon and elsewhere; homosexual "marriage" in Vermont and (potentially elsewhere); abortion anywhere.

Sure, you can argue that these things don't really affect most people. But are you seriously arguing that nothing John Ashcroft has done has neither affected nor sought to chill civil liberties of Americans?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think this is a red herring. (I've never actually seen a red herring, and it doesn't sound very appealing at all.) Back when they were passing the PA, the point was made, repeatedly, that this was an extension of existing tools to the purpose of anti-terrorism. The great conservative Joe Biden put it this way (I found one quick quote here) - “the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What’s good for the mob should be good for terrorists.” (Cong. Rec., 10/25/01).

In other words, what NPR was complaining about was the use of methods and tools that were already there pre-PA - the only difference was, one could now claim "terrorism" and get the warrants.

I'm generally in agreement with you on this, and have not witnessed any erosion whatsoever. However, there are some that are beginning to use the PA for non-terrorist type investigations. I can't remember the specific facts, but I think the fed in vegas was going after strip clubs/politicians/scanal under the PA with not even an alleged terrorist connection.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Even Hilary Clinton laughs at this assertion. "Stark erosion"? What's changed? Has anyone looked to see what library books you've checked out?

Yeah, buy Hillary's a racist.

No, no one's looked at the books I've checked out. No one's looked at the video tapes I've rented either. BUt I seem to recall that Congress was so frightened by that after the Thomas hearings that they banned the practice of recording that. Now that it's terrorists, rather than politicians, it's okay?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Watchtower
I was watching the news last night, and they were talking about a computer program that the government is installing that will classify everyone who travels based on algoritms (naturally, they will be secret since if they were otherwise they would be easily defeated), and will put them into red (can't travel by air), yellow (additional screening) and green (travel freely) categories. I can't tell you who will be affected, because, of course, that is secret, but I can tell you that some portion of the American public is going to be denied the right to travel by air based only on suspicions.

Even if you do not accept the idea that infringing on one person's rights (simply because they are, as you say, a "suspect") infringes on all of our rights, this strikes me as a fairly serious invasion of civil rights for a large number of people.

And this is just an offhand example from the last 24 hours.

When you want to get on an airplane, you have to agree to a search that is entrusive as the security wants to be. They can body cavity search you if they want. So there is some lower level where you WILL be subject to additional search. You can't be bothered by this. Some people MAY be barred entirely? Until I see this actually happen, I can't see it as erosion. How often do you think they'll do this?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Or shall we talk about efforts to federalize limitations on civil liberties that states have sought fit to enact: medical marijuana use in California; a "right" to die in Oregon and elsewhere; homosexual "marriage" in Vermont and (potentially elsewhere); abortion anywhere.

Stop. These fights were all going on pre PA and pre Bush.

Frankly, I expect better from you.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Meanwhile, the US Patriot act enacts significant authority to spy on US citizens, in their libraries, through wiretaps, and so forth.

See above. There's really been no change.

Or shall we talk about efforts to federalize limitations on civil liberties that states have sought fit to enact: medical marijuana use in California; a "right" to die in Oregon and elsewhere; homosexual "marriage" in Vermont and (potentially elsewhere); abortion anywhere.

MedPot represents an attempt to expand liberties by fed-countervailing statute, not a narrowing. The "right" to die? Another attempt to expand (although granny might argue with the assertion that this makes her more free.) Homosexual marriage, again, is an expansion. As for the abortion mess, you blame this on Ashcroft? This is a basic tenet of the R party.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm generally in agreement with you on this, and have not witnessed any erosion whatsoever. However, there are some that are beginning to use the PA for non-terrorist type investigations. I can't remember the specific facts, but I think the fed in vegas was going after strip clubs/politicians/scanal under the PA with not even an alleged terrorist connection.

But the point is, they're doing things they could have done before using existing statutes, and merely listing the PA sections as the relevent authority on the warrants. No substantive difference - just an easier, all-inclusive label and statutory citer for cops to remember.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Not that this doesn't sound like a bad idea, but ... air travel is a civil right?

Isn't that reductio ad absurdum*? I mean, you can argue nothing you do outside of your house is a civil right, so it's perfectly okay to ban such activities on whatever basis one sees fit. Eating in a restaurant or staying at a hotel is not a civil right either, but you can't ban people from doing so based solely on race. Or, for that matter, is driving a civil right--guess a roadblock for all blacks passes constitutional muster then.

The point is not that you're being prevented from engaging in an activitiy that's a civil right because of your race (nationality, etc.). IT's that you're being prevented from engaging in an activity that we regard as perfectly legal (flying), and therefore within the realm of liberty, and then denying it to some because of their background.

That said, I don't think any criminal screening program has to eliminate race, nationality, etc. from teh calculus.



*shit, I hope I have that right, what with your classics training and all.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln . . .

Let's start there: the war on terrorism. Put aside the foreign POWs taken to a "non-US location". Let's look at folks in the US:

DOJ has denied representation to several suspects thought to be associated with terrorists. It has denied at least one an opportunity to interview a witness who purports to have evidence to exonerate him. But lets move past our concerns about terrorists, because we know it's okay to deprive criminals of rights, because, after all, they're criminals.

Meanwhile, the US Patriot act enacts significant authority to spy on US citizens, in their libraries, through wiretaps, and so forth.

Or shall we talk about efforts to federalize limitations on civil liberties that states have sought fit to enact: medical marijuana use in California; a "right" to die in Oregon and elsewhere; homosexual "marriage" in Vermont and (potentially elsewhere); abortion anywhere.

Sure, you can argue that these things don't really affect most people. But are you seriously arguing that nothing John Ashcroft has done has neither affected nor sought to chill civil liberties of Americans?

I wasn't arguing, I was asking. My original post was clear that I wasn't trying to dismiss the issue of detainees, I just wanted a list of other things.
Frankly, having authority to wiretap, etc. is different than using it, and most of the things you list were used against Italians where there was evidence of mob involvement. Where were you then?
The concern I would have about the FBI checking library records generally, (that is w/o strong ties to terrorism) is what the fuck are they doing wasting the time.
As to the civil rights gay/abortion/etc., I happen to hate that part of the Rep. agenda, but that's politically motivated stuff that comes up cyclically with different administrations.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Stop. These fights were all going on pre PA and pre Bush.

Sure, and Ashcroft's put a stop to them?

He's advancing a ball that's objectionable to some. Why shouldn't he be held accountable for doing so? Clinton was certainly happy to take credit for eliminating a deficit through an economic recovery the basis for which was set under Bush. Should he not get credit for that?

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
When you want to get on an airplane, you have to agree to a search that is entrusive as the security wants to be. They can body cavity search you if they want. So there is some lower level where you WILL be subject to additional search. You can't be bothered by this. Some people MAY be barred entirely? Until I see this actually happen, I can't see it as erosion. How often do you think they'll do this?

OK, so basically you're not bothered by any erosion of civil rights until it happens to you? Many founders believed that this was a wide-spread attitude, and thus conditioned their acceptance of the Constitution on the adoption of the Bill of Rights, including the provisions noting that powers not delegated to the federal government were reserved to the people.

What is the worry with discriminating against people based on a computer program that may well factor race and national origin in? Well, if you have no objections, than let's ask everyone with a vowel at the end of their sock to go to the back of the bus. This is what Birmingham and Selma were all about.

And as to air travel as a right -- yes, I believe freedom from discrimination on the basis of race or national origin in places of public accomodation is a right. Just like blacks in the back of the bus.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore


MedPot represents an attempt to expand liberties by fed-countervailing statute, not a narrowing. The "right" to die? Another attempt to expand (although granny might argue with the assertion that this makes her more free.) Homosexual marriage, again, is an expansion. As for the abortion mess, you blame this on Ashcroft? This is a basic tenet of the R party.

Wait a minute. If a state wants to define certain activities as liberties that that state's residents shall have, and Ashcroft opposes it, that doesn't make him anti-civil liberties? (And, note my use of the term "right" is not one presuming a constitutional right, just a right provided by a polity). I don't buy that argument. He's opposed to their expansion. THat's not materially different from actively seeking to reduce them--it's directional--he's for the direction of less.

And see my post above about responsibility. I'm not convinced you couldn't find a R AG who would be far less hostile to civil liberties.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Watchtower
OK, so basically you're not bothered by any erosion of civil rights until it happens to you? Many founders believed that this was a wide-spread attitude, and thus conditioned their acceptance of the Constitution on the adoption of the Bill of Rights, including the provisions noting that powers not delegated to the federal government were reserved to the people.

What is the worry with discriminating against people based on a computer program that may well factor race and national origin in? Well, if you have no objections, than let's ask everyone with a vowel at the end of their sock to go to the back of the bus. This is what Birmingham and Selma were all about.

And as to air travel as a right -- yes, I believe freedom from discrimination on the basis of race or national origin in places of public accomodation is a right. Just like blacks in the back of the bus.

So your concern, is the potential that these lists may somewhat profile? Okay, for now I'm comfortable with that, especially if the do not fly list is short, and justified. Profiling has been argued to death here, I won't repeat it. For now, to not profile is crazy, especially is the profiling only involves a closer search.