 |
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) uplinktruck | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US Rep. Peter King (R-Long Island, NY) called upon the New York State Attorney General to begin a criminal investigation of the New York Times for publicizing sensitive anti-terror operations. He made this call this morning on Fox News (So far there are no websites carrying the story). Okay, I want to see the New York Times brought back to reality as well. The damage their irresponsible reporting did to counter terrorism operations will never be completely known. It's difficult to measure a 'might have been.' It is obvious to me the New York Times has declared war on the President and the War in Iraq. Clearly they sided with al Queda when they published the wire tap, call detail record and now the banking tracking stories. It is also crystal clear the people at the Times don't give two hoots how many innocent people people get hurt so they can beat their drum against the administration. That really strikes me as a little odd. If any news organization had an up close and personal look at terror in action, it had to be the Times with their ringside seat for Sept. 11th. Chances are King's words are just so many words. The first amendment will protect the Times for better or worse. This is a good thing because there are subjects the news media needs to publicize that the local, state and federal governments would prefer to avoid. But that first amendment comes with a heavy responsibility. A responsibility the New York Times seems to have forgotten. The courts have consistently ruled it is not free speech to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Clearly this kind of limitation is required to prevent injury and death. But the New York Times editorial staff claims the public's right to know outweighs any security concerns. I wonder if aiding and abetting terrorists to make a successful attack on US soil comes under the same heading as the injury and death caused by yelling "fire" in the theater.
The events of 9/11, as well as the war in Iraq, require our government to intensify its efforts to combat terrorism. - Arlen Specter Tags: civil rights, federal law, free speech, government, government surveillance, journalism, law enforcement, new york times, politics, terrorism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You were wrong in the posts you deleted when you asked me not comment on you blog anymore. You're still wrong now. I do have a few questions for you: Do you remember the events of Sept. 11, 2001? Do you believe there are well organized, well funded people out there who would like to do it again, only worse? If you answered yes to the last question, do you see a problem with notifying those very same terrorists how were keeping tabs on them? What in the Hell does agreeing or disagreeing with the administration have to with outing ongoing intelligence operations? Sadly you and the New York Times are too blinded by your political ideology to sit down and consider, even for a minute, that the President of the United States may have just a little more information then you have. Perhaps someday you will see just how wrong you are. In the mean time carry on with your new found religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You think I'm wrong; I think you're wrong. Both opinions based on our understanding of the facts. *shrug*
Yes, not only do I remember 9/11, I had friends in government then and was pissing myself until I heard from them. This does not make the widespread, unconstitutional surveillance of the phone, email, and banking records of Americans acceptable. It does not make torture of captured combatants acceptable; it does not make detaining people without warrant, without representation and without trial acceptable. It does not make straining our military beyond its limits by starting a second war when the first hadn't even been won acceptable, and it certainly doesn't make starting that second war and then doing little to nothing that is necessary to win it acceptable.
I am not willing to become what I behold in order to oppose it.
Of course the acting President has more information than I have. He has also proven himself willing to lie, to utilize torture, and to ignore the U.S. Constitution and the rules of war. In short, he has done little to nothing to earn my trust as a citizen that he will use his information wisely, and everything to cause me to view him with suspicion.
T'aint a religion, Leland. It may well be that the invasion of Iraq was necessary, though I still have my doubts on that score. However, the widespread incompetence with which that campaign has been handled, coupled with this government's total abrogation of the moral high ground that 9/11 granted us, has left you and I and everyone who lives here - as well as our soliders abroad - *less* safe than we were before. So now, I fear not only my government (insisting on monitoring my communication is but a few steps away from arresting me for its content) but have more fear of terrorists as well.
Outing "intelligence operations" that violate the human and/or civil rights of Americans is what the press is for. Thank the gods for USA Today and the NYT; it's way past time that the MSM grew some cojones.
As for who is wrong and who is right, again *shrug*. I will continue to advocate to resurrect our civil liberties, for a responsible, open government, and for the ethical conduct of warfare regardless of whom opposes us. If I understand you, you will continue to advocate for an abrogation of all of the above, or anything that seems "necessary" of the above, in order to feel physically safe. It doesn't seem a fair trade-off to me, and if your position ultimately wins I feel we will all have a lot less real safety than the little we have right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This does not make the widespread, unconstitutional surveillance of the phone, email, and banking records of Americans acceptable. You are still wrong. Like it or not, the surveillance is NOT unconstitutional. Under the given circumstances it never has been and hopefully never will be. It's not an opinion, it is the the law. I grew tired of all the uniformed bullshit on the matter, did the research and posted the relevant facts here: Federal Eavesdropping, Call Data Reports and Common SenseThe banking transactions have even less protection then the phone calls. Those transactions are effectively open records to all the governments of the world. They always have been and always will be lest someone get out of a couple bucks worth of taxes. Why not use them to track terror money too? As for who is wrong and who is right, again *shrug*. I will continue to advocate to resurrect our civil liberties, for a responsible, open government, and for the ethical conduct of warfare regardless of whom opposes us. Ethical conduct in war? Are you living in a box? What is ethical about a terror campaign waged against civilians? What is ethical about anything al Queda or any other terrorist has done to date? There is nothing ethical about war. There are no Marquess of Queensberry rules here. It is kill or be killed and those with a false sense of "ethics" are usually the first to die. The only ethical thing to do is to bring it a conclusion as quickly as possible through what ever means possible while keeping as many as your soldiers and civilian population as possible. It must be nice to sit there safe and secure at your computer and pass judgment on how war should be waged. Until you've been to a shooting war, taken fire, returned fire and comforted your brothers as they died, you are not qualified to speak on the matter and you will never understand the reality of the subject you spend so much time expanding on. This war to keep you and everyone you know safe from another terrorist attack. I believe our response has been remarkably restrained considering all we could have done. But that's why I'm not the President, a police officer, prison guard etc. And yes it is a form of religion when one ignores facts in favor of a belief. So far you've made lots of emotional perfect world arguments and backed them with absolutely no law or facts. We all know you don't like what's going on. I'm not so keen on all of it myself. However, I think this sums it up: "There's enough wrong with this country as it is. But you just can't go making shit up."
- Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I am qualified to comment on the ethics of torture. The rules of war require that once one has captured enemies that those enemies be treated humanely. Period. I will insist on no less humane treatment of enemy combatants than I would of our own soldiers when they are captured. But, of course, this government's policies have made it pretty damn hard to morally justify retribution when their side mistreats our captive soldiers, haven't they?
On a practical level, war is a psychological as well as a physical enterprise. The moment the U.S. government's use of torture got out, we lost the psychological war. We are no longer any better than our enemies are in the eyes of our possible allies or the eyes of those who are deciding whether or not to ally themselves with us.
On a less practical, but no less important note - I am not willing to mimic the atrocities of my enemy in order to "win" - that is not the way to any victory other than just staying alive. Staying alive at the cost of my soul is not worth it to me.
And, sadly, our own guys have taken out civilians as well. It sucks, but I also can't find it in my heart to condemn soldiers who are doing their best in an impossible situation under the leadership of a morally and ethically bankrupt, as well as incompetent, government.
There is quite a bit of controversy as to whether or not the tapping of phone and emails is constitutional. I have read your report on the phone logs, and will only say that we need to have stricter laws enforcing people's privacy rights, not more lenient ones. You may well be correct about laws governing banking transactions. However that latest revelation stacks up against the mountain - infiltration of and spying on peaceful opposition groups, warrantless "searches" of phone and email, willingness to out a CIA operative to score a political point - of evidence that this government has no respect for citizen's privacy, and more than ample willingness to destroy lives if it deems doing so necessary for its political success.
In your comment on my blog you wanted me to address an emotion-laden scenario. The easy thing to say would be to agree with you completely. Tap everyone, lest we let a terrorist get free! Etc - given that I'd happily and even eagerly take up arms personally against anyone attacking civilians in my presence, if given the opportunity. And sad to say, I may well do things to those people that shame me to think about. But the point is, we exempt our civilian leaders from serving on the front lines precisely because we require them to make decisions that are lawful, ethical, and devoid from the knee-jerk reaction of the moment. To hopefully be guardians of the ideals this country was founded on and not sell those ideas down the river the moment danger threatens. Yes, there is a delicate balance to strike between losing those ideals because we sell them out in the name of protecting them and losing everything because we don't protect ourselves enough. This administration has not proven itself competent or ethical enough to strike that balance.
(Side note: Please don't lecture me about violence, or attempt to belittle me for what you perceive as a lack of intimate knowledge with it. While I've not been in a shooting war, I'm a veteran on both sides of the violence equation - victim and, to my shame, perpetrator. I'm experienced in the uses of violence and in the damage that use can do to both victim and perpetrator. I've feared for my life, and that at an age when the worst thing I ought to have been worried about was the location of my crayons. And while I've not watched someone I love die of violent causes, I've watched plenty of them die.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: okaminokaze |
Date: June 27th, 2006 12:05 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
With great freedom comes great responsibility
|
With great freedom comes great responsibility, yes. Including the responsibility to take action when the government has overstepped it's bounds. So the New York Times should be protected under the First Amendment for reporting stories describing violations of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. A quick recap of the amendments regarding search and seizure: Amendment IV
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.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
In Katz V United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) and US V US District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), the supreme court backed the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights over national security. And that is the way it should be. From Katz V United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967): "The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violate the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."
And from US V US District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972): The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of Government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society. — Lewis Powell, writing for the Majority.
What this country needs is not someone trying to make this a police state like Bush does, who wants to erode our rights from us. What this country needs is to fall back on a stricter interpretation of the constitution. One where the government is held accountable for their actions, especially when these actions violate the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. And Bush needs to be removed from office because he broke the Presidential Oath of Office, however last time I checked that is not an impeachable offense. He swore, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878064.html) which he has violated with the Patriot Act and through the actions that the New York Times has reported on. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
