Thursday, January 19, 2006

Real conservatives don't back wiretaps

Lest we think that the Bush-Cheney spy mission to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens is something their base would like, consider this:

An organization calling itself Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) wants Congress to hold "open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)."

The group includes some of the right's biggest luminaries -- Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.

"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist.

"The need to reform surveillance laws and practices adopted since 9/11 is more apparent now than ever. No one would deny the government the power it needs to protect us all, but when that power poses a threat to the basic rights that make our nation unique, its exercise must be carefully monitored by Congress and the courts. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of all Americans so that future administrations do not interpret our laws in ways that pose constitutional concerns." -- David Keene.

"If the law is not reformed, ordinary Americans' personal information could be swept into all-encompassing federal databases encroaching upon every aspect of their private lives. This is of particular concern to gun owners, whose rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment are currently being infringed upon under the Patriot Act's controversial record search provisions." -- Alan Gottlieb.

Read the release.
Funny how these real, principled conservatives stand up for protecting personal privacy while the partisan hacks like Sykes, Wagner, Belling, and McBride all excuse Bush for trampling on people's freedoms.

Their response: "It's OK, he's the President."


At 10:37 AM, Blogger krshorewood said...

And don't forget Sykes was a big champion of privacy rights when Clinton was President.

Look like in the world of Charlie McCarthyism when you have an R after your name you can do whatever you want.

At 2:03 PM, Blogger Chris said...

funny how you on the left fall over themselves to protect the "rights" of terrorists every chance you get.

if an American while in the United States is talking to known terrorist overseas I not only hope the goverment is listening to what they say I damn well demand that the goverment is listening.

But then you wouldnt have the chance to say "They didnt connect the dots" the next time there is a terrorist attack on the US soil would you.

I bet all of you on the left are bummed the CIA may have killed Al Quidas chemwep guy too I am sure we violated his "rights" when we blew him up.

Whats it like always siding with our enemies?

At 3:07 PM, Blogger christopher robin said...

I find it amazing that Libs have no problem with warrantless searches of citizens homes but have a problem with survelliance of known terrorists and their friends in the U.S.

The Clinton administration argued for these very rights.

I would be more concerned with the morons in the state department who resent a commander-and-chief who actually actively sets foreign policy. If you disagree with the course the decision makers take fight with facts from the inside. Don't take it upon yourself to decide what is or isn't a national secret.

Funny isn't it how the Plame leak is completely off the radar since the leak of real consequence came out.

At 5:48 PM, Blogger Xoff said...

Why do you folks write about the left and libs when this post quotes several leading conservatives on the issue?

At 5:41 AM, Blogger TheOctillion said...

""""I find it amazing that Libs have no problem with warrantless searches of citizens homes but have a problem with survelliance of known terrorists and their friends in the U.S.

The Clinton administration argued for these very rights""""

what is far more amazing, and chilling, is the fact that some on the far right have been fed, and believe, completely manufactured "facts" in order to perpetuate their views.

the Clinton administration did not argue for these very rights.

The Clinton administration in one specific instance, with respect to a COA spy (Aldrich Ames) later convicted for life of spying for the Soviet Union, argued for (and took such steps).

Read the history on Ames, and you wil see why.

But more importantly, on instance in the name of national security to set aside the law is, from a legal and constitutional perspective, not even remotely related to a program that has potential applicability to each and every one of the 300 million Americans, and which sweepig program itself is in violation of the law.

Even more important, in such very specific instances (which Court's have somteimes held President's may authority to underatke such actions), there is always a record of what was done, and for oversight.

Reading numerous accounts of this, from "leading experts: who are in fact no more than apologists for the current administration, I have not heard an argument made that did not erronesouly cite the facts, or distort thelogic or the law. Yet if one is not an expert on the law, and does not know all the facts, and on top of that arrives at the situation with a preconceived bias or predisposition, it is almost impossible to pick this up. that is how this well meaning and obviously self righteous commenter got duped, AS SO MANY HAVE BEEN DUPED BY THE FAR RIGHT.

the last thing anybody wants to think is that they have been duped. So they will resist the idea. but they have. But its not purposeful duping. This is what the far right believes. they are to some extent precluded from being able to see certain partisan and policy things from the requisite necessary objective perspective because they have already decided their beliefs.(Hence how sean hannity,and others, demonize liberals, for instance. I am not a liberal, but as for the views of liberals, sometimes I agree sometimes I don't. I also believe that if you actually listened (and put aside the noise that the far right creates to distract from what they are actually saying (and I grant you liberals don't always convey their message that effectively) you would agree sometimes too. Maybe less often. But you would understand why a different side believe what it does. Until this is understood, you can't really understand the issue itself.)

this tendency by the far right to have already pre shaped views, interpret the facts to fit them (it may be what defines the far right more than anything else, for better or for worse) would be fine if it did not lead to such a constant barrage of misleading and distortionary rtherotic, let alone a repeated and consistent pattern of getting the most relevant facts wrong, time and time and time and time again.

rhetoric misleads people,but it does not change reality.

At 8:25 PM, Blogger DW said...

Bush's USHS resources are already being used to suppress dissent;

Please see the blog

Free Speech Beneath US Homeland Security


Post a Comment

<< Home