This is so important. Has anyone explained why this administration started spying on us BEFORE 9/11?
Posted by nyc at October 19, 2007 08:06 PM"...under laws like 18 U.S.C. 2520...telecoms could be looking at hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars of damages."
Why, Even If You Have Nothing to Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom by John Dean, Findlaw, Fri., Oct. 19,2007
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20071019.html
Hundreds upon hundreds of millions. Of dollars. Of damages. Hmmm.
Possibly a motive. For some irregular measures. To make this go away.
This being repeated criminal violations of the US Code, i.e. the law(s).
Dodd is making a nice election-cycle-crafted raucous public display against giving the telco's immunity for warrantless wiretapping. I doubt the Democrats will oblige; in fact, I doubt Dodd himself really has a problem with it.
But someone please explain to me why the hell I should care about this at all since Democrats are in the process of helping the Neocons craft the RESTORE ACT which will essentially make 'warrantless wiretapping' of American citizens at the discretion of the Executive Branch completely legal in the future....
Sheez! Wake up and smell the 1933 please...these are the DEMOCRATS writing this crap....
Posted by Tampa Student at October 19, 2007 08:56 PMThat's a great John Dean piece, and much needed, and I hope he'll do more on it. But this needs to be reduced to a single soundbite that can juijitsu the reptile brain reflex that the pukes continue to play like a strad.
Keep on, John, and thank you. You are a true patriot. And of course Watergate now seems like an ice cream social.
Posted by Sharkbabe at October 19, 2007 09:17 PMIt matters and we should care because it can damage our oppressors.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at October 19, 2007 09:43 PMWell, I have a HUGE problem with Dean's article, or rather Solove's article.
Yes, it is fine as an intellectual exercise, an underpinning of the philosophical in a broader context.
But that's the god damned problem. They still don't tell people why "I've got nothing to hide" completely misses the point and why it matters to YOU.
Privacy is namby pamby amorphous bullshit. How about it matters because the government can use the information they gather to ruin your life? Give your confidential business affairs to your competitor? Twist your innocent e-mail into a rendition trip to Kazakhistan? Find out about your health issues and use that information as leverage to shut you up?
Suppose you're a random blogger, and the Bushites want to shut you up. You haven't done anything wrong. But they can use information gleaned by spying on you to make you late for a Doctors appointment, or let your red necked boss know about your political activities, and he can fire you for some bs reason.
They could say, "Steve, we know what schools your kids are going to, we know who you work for, we know what things concern you the most, and we can make sure that those things happen to you."
"Congressman McNerny, we can ruin the business you built, we can make sure that freeway offramp goes by Mr. Issa's car alarm shop, we can find out your schedule and get people to make you late, we can find out where those runaway Democrats went from the Texas Statehouse, and get one of them to switch his vote even though he hadn't done anything wrong."
They can threaten to expose reporters sources unless the reporter stops asking questions, it goes on and on and on.
Yes, Solove is correct, that defense only works when you assume that privacy is only used to hide wrong doing. And yes, a lot of what we do is nobody else's business, i.e teenage angst, And yes, a leering, lurking government watcher inhibits freedom of expression.
But that doesn't account for the practical abuses, and that's what the republicans specialize in. Remember, republicans are, at their core, stupid and/or ignorant (at least the ones we have to deal with today). They don't trouble themselves with high notions or concepts. They only want to know how they can make MONEY from the deal. Who is on your side and who isn't. Who is helping Blackwater set up shop in Potrero, and who is working to stop them.
Practical reasons for why this spying must stop. Not because it's wrong, and runs completely counter to the basic core of the Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights, which it is and which it does, but because they can use it to screw over innocent Americans who get in the way of their greed and lust for power.
Why do you think republicans always seem to get the best deals, the best contracts, the best jobs? Dumb luck? Because they earned it?
Please.
So, to sum up, don't just make the philosophical argument, make the practical argument, and make the practical argument first, then buoy it up with the deeper underpinnings. I'm sure you all can think of real examples of how all that gathered information can be used against perfectly innocent Americans, so use them instead of the touchy feely weak ass stupidity that Democrats usually use and lose with.
Thanks, rant off.
Posted by Duckman GR at October 19, 2007 11:00 PMRighteous and spot-on rant, Duckman, thanks.
Posted by Sharkbabe at October 20, 2007 04:32 AMDon't get me wrong here because I think gov't spying on Americans carte blanche without a warrant or any oversight is 100% totally wrong no matter what political party is pushing it. But... the irony here as Jon Stewart nailed it one night in an interview (I've forgotten who it was with but I think it was Jack Goldsmith former OLC head) when he said something to the effect.(paraphrasing from memory here)
So Cheneyco are busy getting all the necessary tools to enhance the power of the executive branch of gov't for Hillary Clinton to use.
I just wonder if Repukes would/will be so willing if there's a Dem President running the show on this type of spying??? Be careful what you wish for repukes...but in the same breath Dems shouldn't be advocating for it either.
Posted by emal at October 20, 2007 06:50 AMThey will order a Blackwater hit on Hillary should she get near power. No girlz allowed in treehouze.
Moot anyway, since they're going to order another hit on US civilians, to gin up fresh wars. Cheney-Rove have sewed up the media game.
Have you heard, Chris Dodd is totally against protecting our children from Osama bin Laden?
Posted by Sharkbabe at October 20, 2007 07:07 AMTotally agree with Duckamn, too many regular Americans don't "get" the philosophical argument so you have to use the practical arguement.
And let's face it, the telecomms are BUYING their immunity. Sen. Rockerfeller has gotten TONS of money from them.
Today's N.Y. Times editorial is spot on: "...it was a very frustrating week in Washington. It was bad enough having a one-party government when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues."
Face it people, after some point the Democrats' "incompetence" and "spinelessness" becomes complicity. And the "one-party system" is the Party of War.
Tampa Student, a million thanks for bringing up the Restore Act, it's way too far beneath the radar, hopefully people will look into it.
And Duck, excellent comment on how to frame the debate to reach the maximum amount of people. Very well done.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 20, 2007 07:29 AMTampa Student, thanks for the link to ACLU: "...The Fourth Amendment requires individual warrants if Americans are involved...."
Sorry, that's 20th Century thinking, we're post 9/11 now, you know.
The Founders overthrew their tyrannt.
Posted by gay veteran at October 20, 2007 09:25 AMI believe the government should have the power to arrest me on the spot. Throw me in jail using secret evidence that it obtained against me by listening to my phone calls and spying on my e-mail. And if the government needs to doctor evidence, so be it, because the governement should have unlimited, unchecked power. and so the argument goes.
Posted by gaspare at October 22, 2007 10:47 AM