[nathanbedford]

Thank you for a very well reasoned reply, I am very glad that I posted to your comment.

I think we can both agree that we have much to agree on here. We both see the need to protect the democratic process by protecting the person of the president. We see the need to investigate explicit threats. We both agree that safeguards should be imposed in the system to avoid abuse not least among them being some sort of sanction against malicious tipsters. We are both concerned about potential abuses arising here or arising out of the war on terrorism. We both want to make sure that the safeguards, like independent judicial review, prevent these investigations from morphing into some sort of sinister gestapo operation.

I think we both agree that the actual threat here as reportedly stated by the Secret Service, "I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor", is not in itself an explicit although it comes close, especially to the ear of a Secret Service investigator experienced enough to know that hearsay is notoriously inaccurate and precise words cannot be relied upon. So to err on the side of caution, an investigation is conducted.

But, assuming the facts as set forth by the original poster accurate, what happens to the investigation after the agents leave the object' s porch? An official file of the United States government has been created in which there is a solemnly written allegation that the object of the investigation has threatened the president. It may further state that the object of the investigation has been obstreperous with the investigator. It is not clear whether the file is protected against dissemination. Will this person's name appear on a no-fly list? Will she be denied access to the seat of government to exercise their constitutional right for the redress of grievances? Will she be denied a security clearance? A government job?

Has this occurred to this woman? Has it occurred to others? Has a chilling effect on speech occurred? And is not the speech affected the most precious speech of all, political speech? Does not the protection of political speech at the most critical time, in a political campaign, have a significant value to a free and democratic society which must be weighed against the intrusions justified to protect a presidential candidate?

Beyond free speech, there are other liberties such as the independent right to be left alone from government intrusion that must be weighed against the risks. My point, and I have no doubt it is a point with which you will agree, is that there has been no systematic, institutional, or legal consideration of the balancing of competing values which must be done in a free and democratic society. We both want some sort of judicial review , we both want to protect the rights of the "accused," we both want a series of safeguards put in place. We both want due process. We won't get that until some transparency is brought into this system.

The weighing process has not been done, or at least has not been done thoroughly enough and I have no doubt that we both agree about that.

Candor compels me to state that this discussion does not occur in a vacuum but in the context of a likely election of Barak Obama who has demonstrated a disturbing propensity to intimidate those who would exercise political free speech. He will be armed with considerable powers coming out of the war on terrorism. There will be few institutional barriers to him getting his way. For example, a majority Democratic Congress has already expressed its intention to oppose the fairness doctrine and eliminate free speech on talk radio. I would not be honest if I did not say that these apprehensions caused me to place more weight on the side of freedom from government intrusion. To the degree that that is a partisan reaction rather than a disinterested consideration which might be offered up in one of The Federalist Papers, I plead guilty.

Thank you again for a thoughtful piece.

[DoughtyOne]

And thank you for the nice response.  I appreciate it.

We are both concerned with big government and it's ability to move into territory that is excessive.  I believe that there are examples of the government doing just that, so I'm certainly not unable to see it in that light.

The issue of files that can be left hanging around after this type of investigation are troubling to me.  If no determination of guilt is made, it would seem wise to me to give them some sort of expiration date, and purge them from public records.  If a strong compelling case did seem to be close to a reality, I might modify that a bit.  In the first instance purge after 2.5 years, and after the second perhaps 7.5 years.  Those files should not be part of a permanent record unless something comes along to indicate a pattern.

If this person were denied access to office, I believe you could make that case.  If she were blocked from certain government positions, it would also be problematic.  I would hope that during the review process, the final conclusion of the investigation would bear the most weight.  Perhaps even a tag on the individual's employement file that would be removed at the 2.5 or 7.5 year purge date might be reasoned.  She wouldn't be blocked from making private or public statements concerning public issues, so I'm not quite as concerned about that.  Some jobs do cause a sort of self imposed, or even a terms of employement imposed censure of comments made in public.  That woudln't be any different for her.

Unless I am misconstruing your comments.  I think you infered that there has been no review of the impact on freedoms related to this type of investigation, no weighing of threat vs individual rights.  If I'm reading your inference improperly, I appologize.  I would state that I think these types of reviews take place all the time.  Every court case that has top rate legal defense, is in fact a review of this process.  If the courts are moved by a defense arguement and  find that the government has gone over the line, it can lay down new guidelines that tweak what the government is allowed to do.  We see judges making mistakes from time to time, that you and I object to, so I think it's fairly obvious that this type of thing is in fact taking place.

You again state that you don't thing a weighing process takes place.  I am curious to see what your take on my above comments turns out to be.  Do you disagree that reviews are constantly being made before the courts?

I agree that Obama is going to be armed with far more powers than I would like, under the new anti-terrorism legislation.  That was troubling to me at the time those laws were implemented, and (I might add) over the hoots and hollers that people on our side were lofting in approval of them.  We're about to see just how detramental those laws can be, if that is Obama's true inclination.

As for the fairness doctrine, it seems to me that is going to be very hard on radio station owners.  For intance, Limbaugh will stay on.  The individual stations will now be forced to put on three hours of alternative drivel, even if it doesn't show a profit.  Rush will in effect be financing the second show, or perhaps more accurately the money he pulls in for the staion via commercials will.  You will probably find more harsh interpretations of what the fairness doctrine will result in, and they may be right.

I do want people to be able to express their views openly on the radio.  If the public favors those comments and wants to listen, they should be allowed to.

My guess is that the fairness doctrine won't affect MSM news reporting though.  After all, those are just the facts being presented.

I too find the concepts promoted by the Federalist Papers to be compelling, and vitally important.

Take care.