Civil Liberties


21
May 09

How can I miss you when you won’t go away?

Both Obama and Cheney have spoken.  Obama’s transcript is at ThinkProgress; The NYTimes Caucus blog provides a summary and links to the full-text at AEI [PDF].

Via the Great Orange Satan:

Photobucket
Obama’s National Security Speech: “Chill, I Got This S*#T!”

Photobucket
Cheney’s Personal Insecurity Speech: “OMGZ!  Teh Feer!  Iz Scerd!
As always thanks to Wordle

Cheney ‘rebuttal speech’ was framed by the press as portraying him as an equal to the President, with the press loving the conflict, even if its imagined. The Elected-President with a 60% popularity rating is going to be challenged by the Former Vice-President (of the losing party no less) with the 30% approval rating.  The story should be looking at Cheney’s audacity.


4
Apr 08

Yoo can always get what yoo want.

I’ve wanted to write something about John Yoo and the torture memos, but it’s depressing and secondly I don’t like to write things that the more well-read political junkies already know, and I’m not sure how to sum up the intricacies of the entirety of Yoo, Bush, and the law in a way that will challenge any of the uninformed, misinformed, or Bush cheerleaders.  Regardless, I’m tackling it anyway.

John Yoo, an Ivy League educated scholar, American Enterprise Institute scholar and fellow, current professor at UC Berkley, and former clerk for two Supreme Court Justices, has been a central figure in many of the central rethinking controversies of President Bush’s administration, including (via ThinkProgress):


6
Mar 08

Most Surveyed Place On Earth?

Wingnut wet dreams not withstanding, I’m fairly certain that the multitude of cameras (over 600, circa 5/2005) surveying Times Square will quickly identify the alleged ‘bomber’ of the US Armed Forces Recruiting Station in NYC.


15
Dec 07

Only one reasonable explanation left…They Knew!!1!

Nancy Pelosi takes impeachment off the table. We find that Democratic Leadership was aware of the waterboarding tapes. Most recently, Harry Reid appears to be dismissing Chris Dodd’s hold (a member of his own party, no less) on legislation which promises retroactive telecom immunity as related to domestic spying.

I had always assumed that BushCo distorted, lied, or just never disclosed to the opposition the shenanigans they were up to, which would be wholly consistent with their actions in the past.

I can understand being bought by lobbyist dollars. I can even rationalize (but not condone) allowing things to spillover into 2008. But why facillitate and condone their actions further?


8
Nov 07

Immunity for Telecoms over Domestic Spying?

Among the general population, there seems to be no question over immunity for the telecoms.  Either the public is unaware of the scope of the story or they believe – erroneously – that any domestic spying undertaken has actually kept us safer and not diminished our rights, or even inconvenienced us.

Knowledgeable readers have been following this since the Mark Klein, an AT&T whistleblower, broke the story broke nearly two years ago.  To briefly surmise, the ENTIRE internet passes through the NSA.  They grab huge chunks of it – your emails, Amazon purchases, credit card transaction, web browsing, instant messages, Facebook stalking – and then winnow it down to find what they are looking for.  The presumption is that everyone could be guilty, and that we don't need probable cause to monitor communications and go on fishing expeditions.

NSA Octopus from NSAWatch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even worse still, much of that actionable intelligence is no longer processed and disseminated by Federal employees, who behavior is governed by law, legislation, and the threat of losing a well-paying government job, but rather outsourced to private industry, outside of Congressional oversite. 

The President's call for immunity hints at the 'alleged' law breaking that industry 'might' have done in 'cooperating' with law enforcement, promising to veto legislation that does not tender complete retroactive immunity to the industry, all the way back to September 11th, 2001 (Which is interesting, since they started their efforts on 2/27/2007).  He uses "complicated language" as reported by Crooks and Liars:

“When Congress returns in September the Intelligence committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director McConnell, including the important issue of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001[.]” 

It's very difficult to wrap your head around the technology and legal concepts surrounding the issue.  Fortunately, Senator Chris Dodd, the first Presidential candidate willing to go to the mat over telecomm immunity, has posted this short video with Klein breaking down the issue [via EFF]:

YouTube Preview Image

Klein seems to think that the attempt for immunity is nothing more than a coverup..


4
Nov 07

The One Where I Voice My Support for Ron Paul…

Norquist Katrina Government BathtubNot so fast, you crazy libertarians.

Between digg and crazy college boys, the fandom and fawning for Ron Paul rivals some sort of political 'Tiger Beat'.

Although I don't doubt the sincerity of many libertarians, and welcome their splintering with the GOP, the fact remains that some of them, at their heart, are no more than Republicans who like to smoke pot.

I'll admit, there is an appeal to the skepticism of the modern libertarian. Their goal though, of limited government, when taken to its logical extremes, actually results in the outcomes of GOP activist Grover Norquist, advocating the "drowning of government in the bathtub". Mind you, the GOP still wants to collect taxes for the services they outsource and privatize, they just want them performed outside of governmental oversight and be able to be incentivized by them via campaign contributions.

Here is the win-win for liberals, conservatives, and libertarians…


5
Oct 07

Iraq as Metaphor

John Stauber has a post at PR Watch that is sourced from Matt Bai's book, The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics, where former NY Governor Mario Cuomo speaks to a group of wealthy Democratic activists:

Shortly after the November 2006 election the Democracy Alliance, an exclusive group of about 100 Democratic Party millionaire activists, met in Miami, Florida. Members and their guests heard their keynote speaker and liberal legend Mario Cuomo analyze the Democratic Party in the wake of its stunning electoral victories that had given Democrats control of the US Congress. Cuomo criticized the Democratic Party for lacking vision, big ideas and a winning political argument. His recipe for future Democratic victories was simple: "You seize the biggest idea you can, the biggest idea you can understand. And this is what moves elections."

Cuomo then dared to voice an inconvenient truth: "Now it's 2006 and we're all rejoicing. Why? Because of Iraq. A GIFT. A gift to the Democrats. A lot of whom voted for the war anyway." The former New York governor challenged his partisan audience, "If Iraq is not an issue, then what issues do we have to talk about? … Where does that leave you? It leaves you in the same position you were in in 2004 – without an issue. Because you have no big idea."

Stauber goes on to illustrate why Iraq is a "gift":

The Argument is an important book but Bai muffed the title. He should have titled it “The Gift,” because as Cuomo points out it was primarily the political gift of voter anger and revulsion over a horrific, continuing war that caused them to oust Republicans.

He then goes on to lament how the current Democratic Congressional Leadership is failing to deliver on the voting public's wishes (he is, of course, correct, but that's a whole-another-post).

It's simply too easy to beat the administration over the head with their incompetence regarding Iraq, and that's even if totally ignoring the deceptions and ideology driven mechanisms that created, sold, and marketed this war.  Strangely, most pundits choose to look at the war in isolation, as though it were a unique creature born of unique circumstances.


20
Sep 07

Mo’ Freedom, Mo’ Problems

I got a heads up from Jarice Hanson (participant bio page), a chairperson at Temple University's (my alma mater, BTW) School of Communication and Theater regarding a webconference at WHYY titled Digital Democracy and Freedom of Speech.

The event looks quite interesting, and it is scheduled at a most-convenient time, 1-2:30pm on Tuesday, 10/9/2007, at the WHYY building, especially for those in the Center City (Philadelphia) area. 

To quickly riff on the subject, I understand and expect this conference to have a very US-centric focus, but I suspect conversations regarding digital freedom, at least as we Americans understand Freedom of Speech as enumerated in the First Ammendment (or don't, as the case may be), will most likely affect other nations, such as those in the Middle East and China, where excessive blocking and monitoring, often aided and abetted by prominent US companies such as Yahoo are the norm.

The excessive use of national security exemptions in FOIA, the circumvention of records-keeping and civil liberty safeguards, and others are all blatant attempts to stymie freedom of the press, but what of freedom of speech?  Despite isolated (although far too many) examples of abuses, such as the recent tasing at a John Kerry speech, "Free Speech Zones" at political gatherings, and arrests and detainings based on what t-shirt one wears, I see little formalized institutional censorship, although we're getting there.

That said, there are tremendous threats to digital freedom here in the US, but they often don't come from the government directly to the individual speaker.  No, they come indirectly, via the corporate sphere, the establishment press, intra-governmental agency suppression , other opinion influencers, ideological bullies, our society-at-large, and our own tendencies to self-censor.  In most cases, all it takes is the threat of a libel suit or a DMCA takedown letter to pull content, either by the creator or their ISP.  As illustrated in the Electronic Frontier Foundation Legal Guide, many of the concerns of online speech have little to do with the government.  You can't really say whatever you want.


10
Aug 07

Stu Bykofsky is RIGHT. But free speech does have consequences in the marketplace?

AND he should be fired for this nonsense :

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

[...]

Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?

If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.

The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.

The first 9/11 proved that. *

E-mail stubyko@phillynews.com or call 215-854-5977. For recent columns:

http://go.philly.com/byko.

This last 6-years has been a slow-motion train wreck.  OBL is still on the loose.  The Anthrax attackers are still on the loose.  We're stuck in a quagmire in a war of choice in Iraq, losing a winnable war in Afghanistan, and then contemplating opening a third front of the Great War on Terror in Iran (and Pakistan).

I'm tired of staring into the abyss.  In addition to the 3000 lives lost on 9/11 and the near 5000 (3600 military deaths, and an estimated 1000 contractor deaths) in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can chalk up threats to free speech, habeas corpus, our own privacy, and any semblance for advocacy for the middle class in Washington.  We are distracted from true threats like class inequality, our aging infrastructure, precarious financial environment, and global warming with bright and shiny objects like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, and divisive social wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Although Bykofsky takes the easy way out and (correctly) states that another 9/11 would finally unite us, he's correct, but I hope he's thinking of the wrong outcome.  He thinks that another 9/11 would would cause us to put aside our partisan differences to get "it" done – I'm assuming by "it" he means the War on Islamofacism.  But there's danger in these thoughts.  With the right proudly proclaiming that we are safer BECAUSE there have been no new attacks, another 9/11 might have the complete opposite consequences – reinforces the disgust and despair many of us are feeling towards our media and political institutions.

The next-9/11 will preceed one of two outcomes – either the police state, or the beginning of the American Renaissance, where we cast of the dead weight and corrupt institutions of the past and become the America we thought, hoped, and dreamed we were.

Should Bykofsky get fired?  Should free speech have consequences?  Vote here


29
Jul 07

“I knew it was you Fredo…”

"…I knew it was you all along."

YouTube Preview Image

NYTimes call for the Impeachment of Alberto Gonzalez.  Finally.

It confirmed what most people long ago concluded: that Mr. Gonzales is more concerned about doing political-damage control for Mr. Bush — in this case insisting that there was never a Justice Department objection to a clearly illegal program — than in doing his duty. But the White House continued to defend him.

As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales’s talk about a dispute over other — unspecified — intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it “different” from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up.

Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales’s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.

If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.

Ironically enough, Bush's nickname for Abu Gonzalez is "Fredo".

YouTube Preview Image

  • Meta

  • Pages

  • Statcounter


    View My Stats