A public at risk will surrender rights (Great article by Jim Pinkerton)

Newsday ^ | December 22, 2005 | James P. Pinkerton

[indcons]

As they attack George W. Bush on the surveillance issue, Democrats are proving themselves to be either really principled or really stupid, at least in terms of their electoral futures. I am having a hard time figuring out which it is - although I have a hunch.

Many top Democrats seem convinced that "snoopgate" is a big winner for them. E-mailing his million or so closest friends, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean asks, "Did George Bush break the law?" The presumption is that Bush is guilty, of course, but Dean needs money now to launch his own investigation.

Other Democrats are climbing out even further on this particular Bush-bashing limb. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia and Sen. Barbara Boxer of California have both been throwing around the I-word, "impeachment," in recent days.

And some in the liberal-leaning media are fanning the flames. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter writes, "If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced."

Let's get a grip here. Based on what we've seen so far, Bush is in no danger of losing his job. In fact, if this controversy continues, W. will likely go up in the polls. Why? Because the American people want to be safe. And they will surrender some of their rights to be safer. That political reality may infuriate hard-core civil libertarians, but it's true during all periods of wartime.

All through the Cold War, for example, the American and British governments got around the rules against spying on their own people through a simple stratagem: Each government spied on the people of the other country, and then the two governments exchanged the resulting intelligence.

[GeronL]

I personally heard with my own ears Bill Mahr say that we should not attack an enemy nation which may have WMDs unless and until New York City is nuked. Only THEN do we have a right to attack.

That is true insanity

[Paul C. Jesup]

Wasn't the income tax supposed to be "temporary"?

But the current party in power (the republicans) are trying to get rid of it with HR-25/Fairtax.

[Political Junkie Too]

Maybe Daschle and the others think that homeland security should start after a major US city becomes a mushroom cloud.

And then end after one presidential election cycle.

-PJ

[GeronL]

And then end after one presidential election cycle

These crazies have no sense of bistory and they think that terrorists will stop at some daye that they designate. What fools they are.

[balch3]

This guy is supposedly conservative, but this article is a veiled attack on Bush and Republicans in general.

[57Chevy]

The votes have been counted! W won the election. "GETOVERIT"! You Dems have deep wounds, and whats funny, the wounds are self inflicted! Every time you bash Bush, you bash yourself, by being a sore loooooser! Looooosers never win. It will be a cold day in hell, for the Dems to accomplish anything positive, when you surrond yourself around the looooosers like Dean, J Jackson, Hitlery, Boxer, Daschle.... Everytime they open their mouth, they say stupids things and look stupid. I actually wonder if they are competing for jackass of the month or do they have a bipolar disorder?

[W04Man]

Bump!

[singfreedom]

On a beautiful spring day in April of '95, the people of my city were betrayed in the most inhumane way by a President who, instead of monitoring communications by domestic terrorists, was monitoring foreign companies so he could extort campaign contributions. As a result, one hundred and sixty-nine of my neighbors, friends, their children, and my nephew's baseball coach, died.

Do I favor monitoring suspect communication, be it foreign or domestic? The answer: Hell, yes! The sin lies not in the fact that spying occurred, but that it was done only for the most negligently criminal reasons----which pretty much summarizes the whole Clinton administration. Legacy be damned.

[Cap Huff]

I too consider myself a Christian conversative, with at least some libertarian sympathies. A few days ago several of us freepers (more than 15) tried to reason with another freeper who identifies himself as a Christian and a libertarian. He kept insisting that President Bush has revoked our 4th Amendment rights. Not temporarily suspended them, not exercised specific exceptions to them, not limited them for those who are our enemy --- REVOKED them for you and me.

I was incredibly disappointed to come across someone whom I should consider to be a brother with such a resistence to reason and reality. There are people out there, even on this forum, who have shut their eyes to the reality of the enemy we are fighting, and to the reality of the theater of conflict.

[patj]

I personally heard with my own ears Bill Mahr say that we should not attack an enemy nation which may have WMDs unless and until New York City is nuked.

So if Los Angeles gets nuked we do nothing? Bill, Bill, Bill, what are you thinking?

[RushLake]

"Wasn't the income tax supposed to be "temporary"?"

I don't know whether the income tax was supposed to be termporary or not--don't feel like doing the research at this point. The thing is, we the people accept the IRS having virtually unlimited access to our financial records without a by our leave. We meekly accept giving up our children's right to make a choice about their adult lives by signing them up for socialist security numbers when they are days old. In Michigan we have the government Department of Environmental(ist Wacko) Quality that has the state endorsed right to violate your alleged private property with impunity and assess fines and jail time if you don't agree. There's no big outcry against traffic video survelllance. All working Americans meekly submit to income tax withholding and it is common to hear comments in that regard like, "The government's share of my check was....." We already submit to a lot of government intrusion in our private lives. Where the hell are these elected paragons of virtue demanding to know why those things I've noted are allowed to go on if we're a free people? I guess I come down on the side of taking out the terrorist filth by whatever means, no matter if they're Karl Lenin or Oslima bin scumbag. I've personally decided that if the democrats are trying to get me or mine killed, they must be terrorist sympathizers. The terrorists don't give a rip about courts of law and petit legalities.

[GeronL]

there was another debate over libertarianism tonight.

Libertarianism: The oxymoronic faith

I am economically libertarian, and a Christian.

[beyond the sea]

"All through the Cold War, for example, the American and British governments got around the rules against spying on their own people through a simple stratagem: Each government spied on the people of the other country, and then the two governments exchanged the resulting intelligence."

***

That's pretty funny in a sick way.

;-)

[beyond the sea]

"On a beautiful spring day in April of '95, the people of my city were betrayed in the most inhumane way by a President who, instead of monitoring communications by domestic terrorists, was monitoring foreign companies so he could extort campaign contributions. As a result, one hundred and sixty-nine of my neighbors, friends, their children, and my nephew's baseball coach, died."

"Do I favor monitoring suspect communication, be it foreign or domestic? The answer: Hell, yes! The sin lies not in the fact that spying occurred, but that it was done only for the most negligently criminal reasons----which pretty much summarizes the whole Clinton administration. Legacy be damned."

****

Great post ......... and ping.

[R. Scott]

…Howard Dean asks, "Did George Bush break the law?" The presumption is that Bush is guilty, of course…

The DNC did not raise the issue when it began under Democrat Presidents, but now it is an issue.
Our “esteemed” MSM is using the same technique. By asking the question, it is implying that the answer is “yes” - politics as usual.
My own opinion? A person in Afghanistan or Syria or Iran or anywhere else out of the country in not covered by our Constitution. They are legally subject to monitoring. If I am communicating with a foreign country I have no expectation of privacy because of this and because I can expect that country to also be monitoring foreign calls.

[R. Scott]

Add Social Security to that.

[Cap Huff]

Interesting. I'll read through it later when I have time.

[Right_in_Virginia]

...it isn't that anybody lost rights, it's that they might lose a right sometime in the future by an unethical leader

I've heard this argument before, and it just doesn't make sense to me. How would something as mundane as a law stop an unethical leader from doing whatever he or she wants?

[Simo Hayha]

I wonder if the Democrat-rant is a kind of diversion from what will become known about Able Danger?

[rebel_yell2]

You have surrendered your rights to have a phone conversation with an international terrorist, of course.

Oh, the horror!

Howard Dean is appalled.