Bush Fascist Regime Winning War Against Insidious Quaker Threat
People in these blogs who argue in favor of the Bush regime's warrantless domestic spying always insist that it is only carried out against people who are most certainly communicating with foreign terrorists. Well, they can just go on deluding themselves forever, I suppose, but the truth is just as I predicted: This government has been exploiting their "political capitol" by using it as an excuse to become the fascist totalitarian regime they've been dreaming of ever since Prescott Bush and Adolph Hitler began sleeping together.
While they have pointedly ignored any attempts to bring down actual threats like Osama-Bin-Forgotten, they've been busily "protecting" us from oh-so-dangerous groups like like Greenpeace, P.E.T.A., a Catholic worker's group, and God only knows who else (source)... they're even spying on Quakers, for crying out loud!
So the next time one of you tries to counter our criticism of illegal domestic warrantles searches, invasion of privacy and trashing of the fourth amendment, please offer something else besides, "they're only spying on terrorists!"
While they have pointedly ignored any attempts to bring down actual threats like Osama-Bin-Forgotten, they've been busily "protecting" us from oh-so-dangerous groups like like Greenpeace, P.E.T.A., a Catholic worker's group, and God only knows who else (source)... they're even spying on Quakers, for crying out loud!
So the next time one of you tries to counter our criticism of illegal domestic warrantles searches, invasion of privacy and trashing of the fourth amendment, please offer something else besides, "they're only spying on terrorists!"
posted by SheaNC at 12:16 AM
22 Comments:
And Kennedy wiretapped Dr. King. What's your point?
If you can't figure out my point from the post, I certainly don't have to time to spell it all out for you. Read it again s-l-o-w-l-y. Have someone help with the big words if necessary.
Listen, Kevin, why do you keep trying to justify bad behavior by saying "two wrongs make a right"? You're one of those poor sods who thinks that just because I criticize the Bush regime's illegal and unethical activities that you can somehow prove me wrong by saying that democrats have done bad things, too? LOL!
I have been hearing this over and over and over again on this and other blogs. The only defense the right has for their misdeeds is, "Well, Clinton did this and Clinton did that and Kennedy did that other thing and..."
So that's the Republicans' legal defense? That they are trying to be just like Clinton? Ha Ha Ha! I love it!
Bobby Kennedy reluctantly authorized the wire-tap of King's home but the his actions caused a furor. Had he not been assinated shortly after the revelation who knows what would have happened.
What, exactly, was illegal about the DoD collecting information on people protesting? Were those people prevented from protesting? Did they not actually appear in public? No, and yes. They were allowed to protest, and by appearing in public they cannot expect to remain anonymous.
What you fail to realize, or choose to ignore, is that some of these groups are responsible for violence and vandalism against government recruiting locations. Given that fact, gathering information on those protesting just makes sense. That way, if violence and/or vandalism erupts, the authorities can begin tracking down the perpetrators.
Now, if you had evidence that the information gathered on these protestors was being used to actively go after them and infringe on their rights of free speech and assembly, I'd be with you in outrage (as long as they weren't being prevented because they posed an actual and credible security threat, of course).
You've got a molehill here, and you're trying your best to make it a mountain.
"What you fail to realize, or choose to ignore, is that some of these groups are responsible for violence and vandalism against government recruiting locations."
I myself have been actually doing research on all the violence and destruction these peace organizations and the Quakers have been doing- what an atrocity. And I am sure thats why our morally bankrupt administration is doing this, and its not because they dont want to infringe on first amendment rights and shut down any dissenting opinions, because thats not like them at all.
And why the hell would you ever cite something from 40 years ago as justification Kevin? Im still looking over the blog and trying to find out where Shea said it was ok for Kennedy to spy on Dr. King in the first place. If anyone comes across it, let me know.
"Now, if you had evidence that the information gathered on these protestors was being used to actively go after them and infringe on their rights of free speech and assembly, I'd be with you in outrage."
Fair point, Sean, but would you be able to prove they are not doing it for that reason? If this was 4 years ago when we trusted our government to do the right thing, maybe. Im just not sure.
I would think what the DoD is doing would make you happy - they aren't profiling or making any conclusions about the groups protesting. If they targeted specific groups they would be villified for that very targeting. That they are simply collecting information on every group that shows up - for the stated purpose of protecting their facilities from violence - is unbiased.
There have been attacks on DoD recruiting stations. That's a fact. Monitoring the groups that are motivated enough to show up isn't criminal activity, and it isn't infringing any rights. The DoD has the right, and obligation, to take measures to protect its facilities and its employees from violence.
Well, as I said before, we can all sleep better at night knowing that big brother is keeping an eye on those sneaky pacifist Quakers. Not to mention the fact that they are letting plane passengers bring stabbing weapons back on board, to help in the effort. Neocon logic is almost magical!
Now, somehow, this is supposed to fit in with those republicans' "less government" stuff. Hmm.
Wow Shea, that last one was all over the board. The new TSA regulations have nothing to do with this issue, nor does the classic conservative plank of smaller gov't. But okay.
I'll just reiterate that the gov't, much less "Big Brother", is not targeting "those sneaky pacifist Quakers". The DoD is collecting information on all groups that protest. You know, because profiling is supposed to be bad? Check 'em all out or your discriminatng? That kind of thing? Sheesh.
I suppose you would rather the DoD did absolutely nothing to protect its facilities and personnel? Or would you rather they only "target" certain groups? The DoD has done nothing wrong, but hey, let's gripe about it anyway.
Okay, Sean, let's take it point by point. First of all, the connection between the government spying on people and allowing plane passengers to bring scissors on board is this: Bush says the spying is done as part of the "war on terror", done for national security. I say, if he was interested in national security, he would express a preference to focus those resources on things that actually threaten national security, not Quakers, who are pacifists.
Second, you say, "What you fail to realize, or choose to ignore, is that some of these groups are responsible for violence and vandalism against government recruiting locations." Well, Sean, what you fail to realize, or choose to ignore, is what I was talking about. So I'll repeat: QUAKERS. Pacifists. Dig? If you can show us the evidence that they committed "violence and vandalism", then maybe you'll have something.
Third, as I said in the post, I wrote this in response to those who keep claiming that the Bush administration is only spying on terrorists. In fact, here is what you said, Sean: "My understanding regarding the NSA spying (I think it is closer to investigating than spying) is that only phone calls originating from "dirty" phone numbers overseas were tapped. That is, only calls originating from known or suspected terrorist links overseas were listened to. Tell me how that's a bad thing?" (source).
So, okay, I proved you wrong, no big deal, we're used to that. But instead of saying "I was wrong about that one", or even ignoring it and moving on, you choose the tried-and-true right-wing "hey, look over there!" defense. Ha ha! So now, instead of listening to "calls originating from known or suspected terrorist links overseas", as you claimed, you're justifying this by saying that they're only listening to those who "are responsible for violence and vandalism against government recruiting locations". And that, even after this post proves you wrong about that!
What's next, man? If I write a post that links a news item that says they're wiretapping girl scouts, are you going to say it's justified because the Girl Scouts is a dangerous subversive paramilitary organization? LOL!
By the way: if the US military can't defend its own recruiting stations from Quakers or Catholic workers groups, they should call the cops for help. And if the combined forces of the police and the military can't manage that task without violating civil rights by wasting our money eavesdropping on republicans' political enemies who pose no danger whatsoever to said recruiting stations, then perhaps there is an indication of a problem that is more relevant, and more threatening, that deserves attention.
And now...for a fair and balanced perspective from Jack News.
We have to be very careful in reviewing this issue from all angles. Reaction more often is wrong, defense that follows suit equally suspect. So far, I have not read a level headed perspective from either side.
Shea, you evoke the fourth amendment, however, fail to point out that suspected terrorists plots could easily fall outside the purview of "unreasonable". The Courts have repeatedly stated its insistence upon probable cause as a minimum requirement for a reasonable search permitted by the Constitution. With this in mind, you also fail to point out that there is legal provision for wiretapping under FISA that allows for circumventing the warrant process in favor of attorney general approval. Shea, I have much respect for the rule of law, but fail to see how anyone has made a case that it has been broken. I think that much of this is "alarmist speak", otherwise we would see arrests and/or impeachment proceedings taking place right now. Notice that the politicians are beginning to drop it as an issue. That is because they have nothing on which to proceed, and essentially want to use it as a spector issue in the coming elections. (personal opinion)
Kevin, I understand where you're coming from--I too have pointed out the deafening silence on the left during the Clinton Administration contrasted to the shrill and righteous preaching we currently hear against the Bush Administration. Shea doesn't like that so I have stopped--largely too, because I think they realize it. I like to point out that Bush's war may have created a few more crazed lunatic Muslims, but my daughter has an American designed, Chinese made nuclear missle pointed right at her thanks to Clinton & Company. I also like to point out that our government has been spying on us since Hoover (probably before) and that this is nothing new--its just that the media and politicians ignore it when things are going their way politically. I DO agree, though, with Shea that two wrongs do not a right make do(to quote Yoda), so we have to make sure we remain consistent above all else. There is also a point to make concerning government and its abuse of power. Give the government an inch (any government) and it will take a mile. That is the nature of humanity and the nature of government. In this case we need to review carefully our laws that we have in place and determine if the proper safeguards are in place to protect the privacy and integrity of the American citizen. I think that both can be done with proper checks and balances. An egregious example of "well intended" laws gone awry is the RICO law that has been used against almost every American citizen other than the rackateers it was intended for.
I was against the open-ended war on terrorism before it began. Giving government open ended powers is always dangerous, but I again have to point my finger at the left and their advocation of an "organic" and "updateable" Constitution, one that "changes with the times", etc. (Sorry, Guys!) The Constitution guaranteed our rights and freedoms as individuals, but we have allowed it to be chipped away by our courts and legislators because it was convenient for our belief systems. Welcome to the law of unintended consequences.
-Jack
Jack - "I too have pointed out the deafening silence on the left during the Clinton Administration contrasted to the shrill and righteous preaching we currently hear against the Bush Administration. Shea doesn't like that so I have stopped--largely too, because I think they realize it."
Jack, it is not that I "don't like it", and your implication gives the impression that I am involved in some sort of intellectual hypocrisy, which is not true. As I have explained several times before, I criticized the government before this presidency and will afterward, but I did not start blogging until late in 2004, so I was not available to be heard by you, and I've also stated before that the purpose of my blogging is to present my critiques of the current administration. So, don't give the wrong impression about me or about the left in general. There are existing critiques of Clinton by the left, including a chapter devoted to it by Michael Moore (surprise!), but the fact is that he was a far better president than George Bush could ever hope to be, so comparisons only turn out worse for Bush.
If you truly want to be "fair and balanced", where is your volume of criticism against the ugly, hypocritical, constant and voluminous "shrill and righteous" hate-speech that the right-wing media bombarded us with for years and years, and continues to, even after they have succeeded in gaining power over all three branches of government? Hmm? Where?
And they still can't justify the right's bad behavior without blaming Clinton!
Third, as I said in the post, I wrote this in response to those who keep claiming that the Bush administration is only spying on terrorists.
You proved me wrong? Not. Let's make it clear what the DoD is doing: taking down public information, such as license plates and photographs, of people who show up at its facilities to protest.
THIS IS NOT SPYING.
What the NSA is doing, tapping international phonecalls, that's spying. I hope you can understand the difference.
I'll reiterate. Quakers are not - NOT - being "targeted". All groups that show up - professed pacifists or not - are having their information taken down. Ya see, this prevents the charge of "profiling" that the Left seems to have such big problems with.
In short, nothing the DoD is doing is wrong. You might think its silly for them to take down information on Quaker groups that show up, they might agree that it seems silly. But I'll tell you what, if I really wanted to commit some crime I wouldn't get like-minded people together and advertise it. I would let the world, and my target, think I was nothing but a peace-loving Quaker, or something similar.
Cripes Shea, you're conflating two separate things then working yourself up into a lather. I would hope you could see that. For the sake of argument, let's say the DoD is "spying" on Quakers. Tell me what it is they've done wrong. From what I've read you're upset that they've collected publicly available information.
Shea!
This was not criticism, it was a valid point on your part that I am trying hard to discontinue. YOU pointed out to me where I was going wrong with my argument--that I was bringing out something of little support--and that the points I make should stand on their own merit. This was kudos to you, Shea.
What right wing?
-Jack
LOL! "Let's make it clear what the DoD is doing: taking down public information, such as license plates and photographs, of people who show up at its facilities to protest." Yeah, that's all. They just write those things down and stick them in a drawer somplace. No investigations or anything. Why do you think they take down that public information, Sean? You think they don't do anything with it? Just make a list and ignore it, maybe? No, it isn't spying to "take down license plates". It is spying to gar far outside the boundries you describe, as written in the article I cited. I don't want to cut and paste the whole thing, but it explains how the DoD information gathering goes far beyond the innocent picture you present.
By the way, I never said that Quakers were "targeted". Do a [control-f] and see for yourself. You are the one who said that, not me. I only said that they were spyed upon, which they were. You can argur semantics all you want, but if some guy was hanging around your house writing down your "public information" and tracking your movements, would you ask, "Hey, why are you spying on me?" or would you welcome the scrutiny?
Jack, sorry if I sounded hyper-reactionary; I just wanted to clarify my position on the one point, but I do thank you for the kudos. At this point I have lost track of where my karma is leaning...
Welcome to the club, Shea!
-Jack
It's really quite simple. Just because the Bush administration has identified some religious groups as dangerous and therefore authorized the wiretaps doesn't mean they are necessarily illegal. They weren't when the Democrats ordered them, and they aren't now.
However, this does not mean that the pot pouri of due process modifications in the Patriot Act are okay. Indeed, I oppose the Patriot Act in it's current form. The reason I do is the very same reason you seem to oppose pretty much anything Bush does, from the legal wiretaps used against the anti-war movement to whatever else you have a problem with. If RICO could be used to prosecute pro-life protestors (which, buy the way, the Supreme Court eventually said it couldn't), then the Patriot Act will most certainly be abused if put in the hands of those hostile to pro-family/pro-life matters.
My retort to your assertions is not that two wrong make a right, it's that you seem unwilling to pick your battles wisely. The "everything that Bush does is wicked and evil" argument is getting really old.
Well Shea, I don't think its too much of a stretch to presume the information is taken down in case violence ensues at a DoD recruiting location. If it does, they have a list of organizations and individuals with which to begin their investigation. Do I think the Quakers will or would merit much attention in such an investigation? No, but it would be criminally stupid not to have that information - just in case.
I keep repeating the Quakers aren't targeted because you keep griping about how their info is being collected. My response? Big whoop! So they're being treated like every other group. Why is that so disconcerting? Just another (lousy) reason to complain, I suppose.
I read the article you linked. It has a lot of opinions from an ex-DoD employee. Opinions don't define anything. Sorry.
And you offer an incredibly bad analogy. How about this one - if you start hanging outside my house and I start taking pictures of you and writing down your license plate number and getting whatever other information I can gather just in case something criminal happens to my family or my property, that would be a much better analogy. Mainly because its pretty much what's going on, from what I've read.
Sean, I have been blogging since October 2004 and I have never used this phrase before, but you just don't get it. You say "I keep repeating the Quakers aren't targeted because you keep griping about how their info is being collected. My response? Big whoop! So they're being treated like every other group. Why is that so disconcerting? Just another (lousy) reason to complain, I suppose."
Some of us take invasion of privacy, and illegal search and seizure very seriously. It is a violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution ("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). That is very serious.
You think violating my constitutional rights is no big deal? Honestly, and I mean really, that is one of the things that terrorists want to achieve through their actions: the willingness of Americans to suspend their civil rights because they are afraid that evil lurks around every corner. You're one of those guys who will happily surrender your constitutional rights. I am not.
Anyway, it is obvious that the main point of this post has been missed. It's not about the "spying". it's about the "spying" on unnecessary targets, contrary to those reports that it wasn't happening. Now we know it is, we find that some of us don't care.
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp
Shea, you just don't get it. When you are out in public, your picture can be taken, your license plate can be recorded - that is not "search and seizure". Taking information that is available publicly does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.
That bears repeating. Information that is available publicly does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.
What does that mean? It means when you, or the Quakers, or the Klan, or any other group, drives to a DoD recruiting facility, their license plates, vehicle make, model, and color can all be recorded without the Fourth Amendment batting an eye. Taking down that kind of information is not a search and seizure.
The point of this post has not been missed. You just cannot seem to accept that collecting public information is not "spying", is not "search and seizure", and does not in any way trample anybody's Constitutional rights.
Quoting Martin Niemöller is equally inappropriate and inapplicable. Nobody is being taken way to concentration camps. And nobody's rights are being violated. As much as you would like to believe it, it isn't happening. Sorry. You'll have to find another reason to hate Bush.
Sean, the way you completly ignore what I have written makes it obvious that you don't read the entire comment. You bviously just read a few words, get pissed off, and then start ranting about things that aren't even relevant. I told you already, the point of the post is the innapropriate acquisition of information from sources that have no bearing on national security, and the unjust use of the information.
Look how confused you are. Here is what I said: "No, it isn't spying to 'take down license plates'. It is spying to go far outside the boundries you describe, as written in the article I cited."
Then you apparently dropped your crack pipe and mumbled, "When you are out in public, your picture can be taken, your license plate can be recorded - that is not 'search and seizure'."
You really need to try harder to stop making up things and pretending I said them, especially when all we have to do is scroll up to see you're making them up.
What really is sad is your slavish devotion to Bush, and your defense of his actions whether they are right or wrong. It doesn't matter what new informaition is revealed, or how vile or unethical the behavior, you are compelled to rationalize it, to lapse into denial, to somehow make it right in your mind that no matter how bad the thing is, it must be right because it is done by your guy. Your attitude is not exclusive, and it has been accurately compared over the last few years to battered wife syndrome.
By the way, the Niemöller quote is perfectly appropriate and relevant in light of the Bush regime's practice of throwing people into foreign prisons without charging them with any crime, torturing them, etc. I know, I know, your side thinks torture is God's gift to repubicans.
Contrary to what you think, I neither require, nor do I desire, to "find a reason to hate Bush". What you, Sean, in your partisan remora-like existence, can't comprehend, is that what I hate is the littany of evil things the neocons do. I hate the lies, the injustice, the hypocrisy, the abuse of power, the unabashed celebration of their unconcealed and documented desire for global domination. PNAC, Sean, not just "George Bush". Bush is just their stooge. I hate power-drunken dictators and I hate hypocrites and idiots who wrap themselves in the American flag while wiping their asses with the Constitution. I hate 'em, and you like to make excuses for them. That's the difference between you and me.
Wow. That's all I can say about you. Okay, let's recap really quickly (because you think I make things up):
Shea said: Why do you think they take down that public information, Sean? You think they don't do anything with it? Just make a list and ignore it, maybe? No, it isn't spying to "take down license plates". It is spying to gar far outside the boundries you describe, as written in the article I cited.
Sean said: I don't think its too much of a stretch to presume the information is taken down in case violence ensues at a DoD recruiting location. If it does, they have a list of organizations and individuals with which to begin their investigation. ... I read the article you linked. It has a lot of opinions from an ex-DoD employee. Opinions don't define anything. Sorry.
Shea said:Some of us take invasion of privacy, and illegal search and seizure very seriously. It is a violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution ... That is very serious. ... It's not about the "spying". it's about the "spying" on unnecessary targets, contrary to those reports that it wasn't happening. Now we know it is, we find that some of us don't care.
Sean said: When you are out in public, your picture can be taken, your license plate can be recorded - that is not "search and seizure". Taking information that is available publicly does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.
Okay, that was annoying, but I just needed to lay it out, because as easy as you say it is to scroll up and read, I don't think you actually did.
I've been arguing this entire time that the information collected by the DoD is unrelated to the NSA spying. I've been arguing that the DoD actions are not "spying", and in no way, shape, or form violate the Fourth Amendment.
You, however, have been arguing that what the DoD is doing is spying. Hence your comment that It's not about the "spying". it's about the "spying". Okay, so now we clearly understand that you think what the DoD is doing is "spying", which somehow in your opinion violates the Fourth Amendment.
I have pointed out, and I will not do a comprehensive legal analyis for you, that taking down publicly available information, and information available because someone is in public, is not spying and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. That's because neither type of recording is a search or seizure.
Of course, you don't like what I say, think I'm a Bush apologist, and change the topic to drone on about how the current Administration (not "regime") lies, cheats, steals, pushes old ladies down, yada yada yada ... That has nothing to do with the topic, but thanks for rehashing it anyway.
To end my side of this discussion: the DoD is not spying, breaking any laws, or violating any Constitutional rights. None. If evidence is presented that they have violated someone's rights, I will be right beside you raising holy hell. Until then, this topic is a non-started for me.
Post a Comment
<< Home