August 8, 2007
‘Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death’ (Brent Budowsky)
In today’s edition of The Hill newspaper I wrote an op-ed with the hope of initiating a serious discussion about how much freedom we should give in, in return for how much safety.
In recent days Congress passed and the president signed a new law that significantly increases the scope of domestic eavesdropping without any serious debate considering the magnitude of the issue.
It was done, yet again, in an atmosphere of fear, which in my view is unworthy of the people and Congress of our nation. I am reposting the op-ed here and if others are interested, hope we can begin a serious discussion, and I would be glad to respond to comments, questions and thoughts.
Personally, living and working near the World Bank and White House, I would rather risk the dangers of a terrorist attack than surrender any freedoms. I do not feel one drop of fear and even if I did, it would not matter one whit.
With many years of intelligence experience, I know more than most that some information must be kept secret. But what is happening now is wrong, extreme, out of control and against traditions of American history that have until now been accepted from the left to the right and by leaders in both parties.
Do people understand that terrorists want us to be afraid, and those who promote fear, or suffer from fear, are furthering a major goal of terrorists?
What do you think? My op-ed from today’s paper follows:
‘Give me liberty, or give me death’
By Brent Budowsky
Patrick Henry’s words ring hollow after Congress passed, and the president signed, a law of enormous constitutional and security importance in an atmosphere of fear, without any semblance of serious debate. Again.
While many members of the House and Senate and leading legal scholars did not fully understand this as the roll was called, this law expands the reach of surveillance of American citizens, on American soil, communicating with those “reasonably” targeted while abroad, without protections that have long existed.
How abusive the implementation of this law will be depends largely on the good faith of an attorney general with little remaining credibility.
America deserves the serious debate that has not been initiated from the original passage of the Patriot Act until today, which is this: How much risk to our security should we accept rather than trammeling time-honored constitutional protections that until now have been supported by a near consensus from left to right and all presidents from either party?
Was Patrick Henry right, that our freedoms are so precious that we should not surrender them lightly? Or was he wrong, and we will casually surrender them with every terror scare, before every congressional recess, during every election cycle?
Should these constitutional protections be surrendered so easily and so timidly with procedures more appropriate for an earmark enacted at midnight by members looking at their watches (in the hope of catching a plane home) and at their poll numbers?
Anyone with experience in intelligence knows: Terrorists are aware they will be eavesdropped upon.
While there certainly must be secrecy to protect sources and methods, there is much kept secret today, not from terrorists but from Americans, that challenge first principles of freedom in an age of executive abuse, congressional submission, and fear politics.
We are told we cannot know the number of terror cells, the level of serious training of terror suspects, how many or how few terror cells have been destroyed through these policies.
We are not permitted to know the true gravity or lack of gravity of the threat. We cannot know what actions were taken to alleviate the threat, what previous actions have been deemed illegal in secret judicial rulings, or why high-level officials objected, while our attorney general testified there was no serious dissent and no previous abuse of rights.
The American people don’t know the truth, and most members of Congress don’t know it either. Nor does the free press. Whole swaths of American life on the most important issues of our safety have been aggressively removed from our democratic system by those with a poor history of telling the truth and a clear history of fomenting fear for political ends.
Our security is undermined by treating the American people and Congress like sheep who should not be told secrets that terrorists already know.
Shame on Democratic leaders for lacking the courage to make a fight worthy of the occasion. Shame on Republican leaders for being co-conspirators in the destruction of the people’s House and the great deliberative body as a co-equal branch of government.
Shame on politicians who pander to fear, and politicians who succumb to it. Shame on the media that hype it, and highest level officials who oppose this but still lack the courage to speak out clearly. Shame on all who let this happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Shame on Reid and Pelosi, shame on Boehner and McConnell. Shame on those who act like Soviet Politburo members and try to bully a sedated attorney general, and shame on everyone who knows that leading officials of American justice were prepared to resign en masse, in protest, and do not demand to know exactly why.
When Congress returns and the presidential campaign begins in earnest, the question of the hour should be: Are you for Patrick Henry, or against him?
Budowsky serves on the Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit and is a contributing editor to Fighting Dems News Service. He handled intelligence issues for Sen. Lloyd Bentsen when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was originally passed, and was legislative director to Bill Alexander, then the chief deputy whip of the House.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 34 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I think our democracy is on thin ice and I often feel defeated and overwhelmed. In the end, voters and constituents have to take responsibility for restoring the Constitution. As you point out in your Op-ed, there are many to blame but "Shame on all who let this happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave" resonates most loudly.
Comment by Shelli — August 8, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
Brent, you should write children's stories with that imagination and tendency to exaggerate you display so often. Apparently you feel that you are the only one who knows the truth and the rest of us are just too dumb "to get it." You state the American public should be informed of secrets that terrorists know? Why? That isn't the way to fight a war. In fact, that's ridiculous. If there is any shame on anyone, it's you, for writing this garbage and implying that you are some kind of expert who knows better than anyone else. That's liberalism at it's best.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 8, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Every decision to eavesdrop will be reviewed by a court post-factum. And if you think that Bush is after Aunt Millie's recipes or the Democrats' secrets, I think you're wrong and there is no proof of that, nor will he get away with it with those reviews. The harder it is for the terrorists to communicate, even when they are aware of it, the less they communicate and the more primitive their methods of communication become, and that's a good thing. I somehow don't think they are hi-fiving each other for depriving Americans of their liberties.
Every police checkpoint could be trumped up as the assault on our rights, the Constitution just isn't specific enough. You got to have a motive before you suspect someone of assaulting these rights.
Comment by Igor R. — August 8, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
No amount of temporary safety is worth the infringement of our civil rights, ever.
We are being asked to give up these rights in stark disproportion to our risk.
As bad as 9/11 was, we only lost 0.001% of the population of the United States. We are not in any kind of existential danger here. More than twice that number of teenagers will die in car crashes this year. Should we remove their right to drive? It would surely make them safer, but at what cost?
We can not be completely safe from terrorists, ever. But we are in far more danger if we allow our Republic to become a police state.
Comment by B. Egnor — August 8, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
I wrote an op-ed with the hope of initiating a serious discussion about how much freedom we should give in, in return for how much safety.
We're framing this debate all wrong. It is not a tradeoff between Liberty and Security. Because this administration — and the people who have worked for over a generation to install a regime just like this one — are not the least bit interested in providing Security in exchange for Liberty.
The question is not, How much freedom are you willing to give up to be safe? The question is, Why are you willing to give up any freedom only to be put in greater danger?
Comment by Laslo Pratt — August 8, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
I am more likely to die in a car accident then in a terrorist attack. I am more likely to die of a sudden heart attack then in a terrorist attack. I am more likely to die of cancer then in a terrorist attack.
Why on Earth would I cede my liberty to the bogeyman? Doesn't that accomplish terrorisms purpose? Every once and a while you're given a clear cut choice: you can live your life in fear, or you can live your life.
The first leads to a life of closeted regret, the second leads to a life full of experiences, good and bad. I would rather have the second. At least that way I'll be free.
Comment by Charles — August 8, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Cameras on every corner sending parking tickets in the mail, watching every move we make in the "public" square, with whom we are congregating and; silence. We try to track terrorist communications to prevent them from plotting against us and kill us and the outrage appears. Hmmm! Is it only when we are filling the revenue department with funds to grow government that we are allowed to monitor and keep our citizenry under surveillance? I agree that there are checks and balances even if they are after the fact that will keep this program in check…
Comment by Rich — August 8, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
Amazing responses: there are still people who trust Bush and Gonzales. I don't. I do think that members of congress and the press do know the truth. I'm afraid that they are happy with it.
Comment by tom whipple — August 8, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
I see a couple of neocons above who are full willing to surrender liberties for a sense of security. Isn't that the result the "terrorists" wanted? Have the terrorists won?
Igor and RR, are you against Patrick Henry?
Great post Brent. I for one am sick and tired of surrendering ground to my bloodsoaked and hard-earned liberties. My forefathers had the nerve and backbone to stand up to the king. People (mostly loyal Bushy neocons) today would have never fought the revolution. No wonder the Constitution is at risk.
Comment by Chris in NM — August 8, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
It starts First, with a "List" that accelerates getting larger and larger uncontrolled…and the original purpose of the list becomes muted and then fades away as the true design becomes clear. A tool for identifying and repressing potential dissidents to the increasingly authoritarian rule…America is, right now, not anything close to a democracy, nor a representative republic, it is a modern day Fascist state, fed by corruption and greed on every level, intoxicating power of a renagade vice-president and a stupid, recovering substance abuseihg, ignorant Nazi who believes he was duly elected as president.
FBI Proposes Building Network of U.S. Informants 25 Jul 2007 The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort to boost its intelligence capabilities. Other recent proposals include expanding its collection and analysis of data on U.S. persons, retaining years' worth of Americans' phone records and even increasing so-called "black bag" secret entry operations. To handle the increase in so-called human sources, the FBI also plans to overhaul its database system, so it can manage records and verify the accuracy of information from "more than 15,000″ informants, according to the document.
A bipartisan group blasts NSA wiretaps 25 Jul 2007 A U.S. bipartisan group Wednesday said the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program is illegal. The Liberty and Security Committee of the Constitution Project said in a statement that the U.S. Congress should finish its probe into the warrantless surveillance program before it heeds the urging of the Bush administration to beef up laws on electronic surveillance.
FBI Seeking to Pay Telecoms to Store Records for Years and Provide Instant Access By Ryan Singel 18 Jul 2007 An FBI unit reportedly facing a criminal investigation for Patriot Act abuses is asking Congress for $5.3 million in 2008 to pay three telecoms to build data centers to store Americans' communication records for years in order to provide the FBI "near real time" access to Americans' phone and internet records. The FBI already pays three telecoms, including AT&T and Verizon, about $1.8 million a year to process written "emergency" requests for telephone and internet records.
Some wonder how Christians could have cooperated with the Nazis - especially when it came to the Nazis' more vicious policies, like forced euthanasia, wars of aggression, and eventually the Holocaust. Evidently, it wasn't too hard - they didn't even need to compartmentalize and ignore their dogmas. They could rely on Christian leaders providing theological justifications for Nazi programs
Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)
When the Nazis came for the communists,I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
It starts First, with a "List" that list is here in America and grows as we write!
de Oppresso Liber
Comment by Jay Prestenback — August 8, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
Eloquent, cognizant and absolutely to the point. We must develope a collective conciousness on a national scale. Pure and true non-partisan, non fear-based conciousness which serves us by it's effectiveness. We really must reflect on our value systems and self-centered tendencies. When we recognize our power of choice, responsibly exercise it and stand up for it we claim it. This last surveillance and wiretapping vote is a huge wake-up call to any one who values their freedom. When nothing changes, nothing changes. Thank you to everyone out there on the frontlines of political and corporate reality who are sharing what they are learning and seeing. Thank you Brent for reminding me to get busy. It's as simple as a few people getting tpgether to protect a fellow citizen from the local bully. Present-day bullies are rich, self-absorbed and willing to go to any lengths to serve themselves via stealing, extorting, deceiving and intimidating as many as they can. It's disgusting and totally stoppable, Don't let bullies do your thinking for you!!!!!
Sincerely and with passion!
Tina H.
Comment by Tina Horne — August 9, 2007 @ 12:15 am
"if you think that Bush is after Aunt Millie’s recipes or the Democrats’ secrets, I think you’re wrong and there is no proof of that, nor will he get away with it with those reviews"
What reviews?
Comment by David — August 9, 2007 @ 1:31 am
Republicans always tout how Reagan ended communism and the cold war. They brag that a Republican President brought "freedom" to people.
I think the only "freedom" that really matters to these people is CAPITALISM. For surely with the erosion of personal freedom here in America under a Republican White House in a bogus war on terror, it is obvious that it was not the SOVIET GOVERNMENT SPYING, the turn in your neighbor policies, the lack of privacy in conversation and freedom of speech, the whisking off to Government prisons without charge or trial that were the problems with the COMMUNIST COUNTRY, it was the lack of CAPITALISTIC OPPORTUNITY.
bush told all of America that terrorists hate our freedoms, and has since done everything he can to show us just how much, by taking them away himself one by one.
Comment by bowncr1212 — August 9, 2007 @ 7:16 am
Thanks for the responses and I am willing to
expand and continue this disussion if others
are. First, to the more personally negative
responses that not surprisingly failed to even
begin a serious disccusion, I ask you this:
Are you afraid of terrorism personally? Are
you aware of, or offended by, the infringments
on constutional protections? How much real
protection do you think these infringements
actually provide? Are you even interested in
a serious discussion, or are you just mini-
pundits peddling the same insider slop that
other pundits peddle?
To several others, it really is a debate
between security and freedom. In my opinion
Bush provides very little security in return
for major attacks on freedom. It is more
than troubling that whole part of our national
life, especially our debates about the most
urgent issues of our safety and security,
have been taken out of the democratic process.
The political corrolary of the debate between
security and freedom should be the debate of
political tactics of fear, versus the political
tactics of courage Those who want to restrict
our freedom promote fear; those who want to
protect our freedoms advocate courage.
Note, I was just as critical of my friends
in the Democratic leadership as I was of
Republican opponents. What is happening today
is a battle for both the soul and spine of
the Democratic Party, which means the present
and future of the Democratic Party.
America has been drenched since 9-11 with the
shameful exploition of 9-11 by those who
pursue the politics of fear. Far too many
Democratic leaders have bought into this fear,
and act fearful themselves. That is why we
keep having these moments, indeed years, of
capitulation. Before Memorial Day Democrats
fold on Iraq and before August recess Democrats
fold on eavesdropping.
Lets be honest. I am close to some senior
Democrats, they know my views, sometimes take
my advice, other time they dont, but this is
the key fact: there is too much cowardice
and not enough courage among highest level
Democrats. They lack strong convictions and
the courage of those convictions and while Bush
promotes fear of physical safety, too many
Democrats run for cover because of their fear
of politics.
To win the battle nationally and globally,
Democrats must first win the battle of their
soul and spine. Democrats need to trust the
people, not their pundits and pollsters and
political consultants who long ago lost touch
with the heartland of America.
America has been through Washington crossing
the Delaware, Gettysburg, Iwo Jima, Normandy
and countless examples of courage and bravery
including our under-supplied, under-supported
troops in Iraq, who risk their lives with
courage, whatever we think of the policy.
Are we so much weaker than every previous
generation of Americans, none of which ever
succombed to fear politics or such a casual
and complacent surrender of the constitution?
I dont believe we are, but I do believe that
Republicans treat us as though we are, and
too many Democrats accept this, by acting with
their own fear, for their own political safety,
with their repeated lack of courage in taking
the case to the people. Too many Democrats
quote JFK, not enough act like him.
Comment by Brent Budowsky — August 9, 2007 @ 7:16 am
Much has been said in this discussion about our American history. But I can´t get over the feeling that the freedom values which we grew up with are lost to many. We have, little by little, become more interested in what we have acquired materially - and the desire to guard what we have has become more important than respect for what it has taken historically to become the example of what a democratic society can attain. I don´t think the politicians as a whole care very much about guarding our rights. I do think they are interested in guarding their positions. I sincerely believe that America has lost it, and if the country is to get back on track we have to find leaders who are intelligent, honest and respectful of the rights of the citizens.
Comment by saxmuntz — August 9, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
No Chris, me and Patrick Henry are like two peas in a pod. Of course he isn't talking much these days, but he is a great listener.
Comment by Igor R. — August 9, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
David, FISA court reviews.
Comment by Igor R. — August 9, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Brent, to answer you question I'm not afraid of terrorism personally, mainly because I'm not afraid to die, but I'm afraid (worried is more of a word) about what catastrophic attacks might do the economic well-being of the United States. Through the "beauty" of asymmetric warfare it is fairly easy to bring the United States into the worst depression in it's history. Just imagine one nuclear device going off in the New York financial district or on Pennsylvania Avenue. The misery that results all over the country because economic activity grinds to a halt would not be a pretty sight.
I'm also concerned, very deeply, about the seeming lack of ability or inclination of a large portion of the population to face the following: the Islamic ideology, at it's core, is contrary to democracy, as well as the traditions and the Constitution of the United States. It's practiced by over a billion people in the world. By the commonly available estimates between 10 and 20 percent of them are radicalized. You do the math. The left is this country made it almost impossible to "suspect" someone because of their ideology or behavior patterns, unless there is clear criminal intent. In this environment, electronic statistical data-gathering provides valuable clues of specific, as well as pattern-recognition type nature. The "friction" that the left creates in implementing electronic surveillance makes it almost useless, so we remain wide-open.
The last thing I want to say is this: if you look at history, those who created police states rarely hid their intentions once they achieved some level of power, and often they didn't hide them even before that. Those who are truly worried that the electronic surveillance is limiting their freedom obviously have the right to be against that on pure ideological grounds. But I ask once again: do you suspect that George Bush, Dick Cheney, or any part of the political or industrial elite have a secret plan to turn this country into a police state, are they just fighting terrorism by, in your opinion, illegal and misguided means, or what exactly is going on?
Comment by Igor R. — August 9, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Yes, Igor R., I have a strong suspicion that George Bush & Dick Cheney have a secret plan to turn this country into a police state. Their plan for the continuity of government in case of a major national emergency, the one they refused to let congressman Defazio, or anyone else for that matter, even look at.
Comment by euthyfro — August 9, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Brent,
I hope you noted the visceral nature of the comments came from your lefty side of the aisle. That is not a surprise.
I do agree with Igor that security is of the utmost importance. How is it that a supposed intellectual believes that this War should be fought in a vacuum? How is it that the peace and freedoms that we've had in our own country are not part of the great effort by President George W. Bush and VP Cheney? The fact that it is only because they are Republican that you castigate them is obvious.
Euthyfro on one had will consider the President and Vice President morons, and then say they are evil masterminds, able to take over the entire country. The fact that the dumb-o-crats are getting trounced in the polls, with lower numbers that the President, is because the need for security is REAL. No matter how hard lefties complain about the War effort, we are winning and that is what really upsets you all.
Brent — you need to make sure you understand that Freedom is not without price, not without sacrifice, and surely not because of your efforts to give aid and comfort to support those that would destroy us.
(BTW, sorry for typos!!!!!)
Comment by John Fort Lauderdale — August 9, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
In the PATRIOT ACT there is a Section titled: SEC. 802DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a)Domestic Terrorism Defined-Section 2331 of title 18,United States Code, is amended-
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking "by assassination or kidnapping" and inserting "by mass destruction, assassination , or kidnapping",
(2) in paragraph (3) , by striking "and",
(3) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and inserting ,"and", and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
"(5) the term' domestic terrorism' means activities that-
"(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
"(B)appear to be intended-
"(i)a to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
"(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
"(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
"(C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
So I ask you as I have asked countless Congressman and Senators. What are we waiting for? Why have we not indicted the President, Vice President and all of this administration that continually use fear to get Congress to capitulate to this administration's demands ? Although I am no fan of the PATRIOT ACT, I believe that using this particular section to stop this administration from shredding the Constitution would be extremely good use of it.
Comment by Mike A ndrews — August 9, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
euthyfro, thanks for an honest answer. Dick Cheney is a very rich man, with severe heart disease, who spent most of his life in public service. Do you think he suddenly acquired a taste for absolute power and decided to live out his remaining years as the first co-dictator in American history? Or is he troubled by too much liberalism and general lack of patriotism, and wants to "clean up" this country before he goes?
Comment by Igor R. — August 9, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Brent, I beleive this topic, trading freedom for security, is not debated or discussed nearly enough. Thanks for expanding the topic. It gets the hair on the back of my neck standing on end when I read about supporters (maybe neglct) for Bush's gestapo tactics. I am a direct descendant of revolutionary war veterans, as I am sure many of us are. I will not give in to the fear.
Comment by Chris in NM — August 9, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Brent, I beleive this topic, trading freedom for security, is not debated or discussed nearly enough. Thanks for expanding the topic. It gets the hair on the back of my neck standing on end when I read about supporters (maybe neglct) for Bush's gestapo tactics. I am a direct descendant of revolutionary war veterans, as I am sure many of us are. I will not give in to the fear, and I am NOT willing to trade away ANY liberties for security.
Comment by Chris in NM — August 9, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Lot of paranoid people in here.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 9, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Yes, Igor R. The FBI has already been eavesdropping on anti-war groups and compling files on them, including the Quakers!! So, maybe they're not interested in Aunt Betty's recipes, but they've shown themselves to be interested in the legal activities of legal organizations.
Recently, repubs in Orrin Hatch's office were caught illegally eavesdropping on Sen. Kennedy's office.
To think that government eavesdropping programs won't target political opponents, is incredibly ignorant and naive.
Ever heard of Cointelpro? Why do you think FISA was implemented in the first place?
Bush and his syncophants have politicized every gov't. agency over which they have the least bit of influence. They aren't going to stop here. Especially with rubber-stamp Gonzo providing guidance.
As for review. The FISA court reviews PROCESSES ONLY. NOT CASES. And that's only every 4 or 6 months. Day to day compliance is monitored by who else? Gonzo.
The fact is, this power WILL be abused. Just as was the new surveillance power they were given under the Unpatriot Act.
A recent review shows that the new power under the P.A. was misused HUNDREDS of times to spy on people who, while they may have been criminal types, had NO connection to terrorism.
The good side is: When all these powers are transferred to the new President H.R. Clinton, maybe she'll use it to round up and detain all you fascists who are posing as republicans.
Comment by sailorman — August 9, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
Another thing, Igor. By your own count, you estimate there are at least 100 million "radicalized" Muslims in the world.
If these radicals hate America so much then, given the relative rarity of attacks against us, one or more of the following must be true.
1) They are the single most incompetent group of radicals in the history of the universe.
2)They are all busy fighting us in Iraq so they won't have to fight us here.
3) Either you, or a rightwing radio bloviator, pulled this number out of your butt.
4) The risk to this country from radical Islam has been grossly exaggerated by an administration that has nothing to offer the country but fear and distractions from their miserable record.
5) This administration is exaggerating the threat posed by Islam to the U.S. in order to keep open the giant conduit between the treasury and it's war profiteering supporters.
There is plenty of evidence to support numbers 3,4 & 5.
To claim that an attack on a financial district could bring this country down is the height of cowardice. Anyone who believes that is simply a coward.
What CAN bring this country down is the results of our response to such an attack. The knee-jerk reactions of a bunch of panty wetting cowards with pushing an agenda has already made the damage of the 9/11 attack immeasurably worse than it would have otherwise been.
Were it not for a cowardly, petulant, ignorant C.I.C. aided and abetted by a sensationalistic media and a spineless opposition party, we could withstand a 9/11 style attack every week.
The terrorists can do no real, long-term damage to this country without lot's of help from sniveling cowardly repubs, ignorant sheeple, and invertebrate Democrats who cannot seem to control the raving lunatic and his W.H. of flying monkeys.
"…give me liberty or give me death."
… Patrick Henry, patriot.
"What good are your liberties when you're dead?"
… Sen. Pat Roberts… typical cowardly repuke.
Comment by sailorman — August 9, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
Igor, You said:
"…The left is this country made it almost impossible to “suspect” someone because of their ideology…"
Are you a Nazi? Communist? Ex KGB? Come on. Come clean.
Only a totalitarian, authoritarian type could make a statement like that.
Why do you hate America?
Comment by sailorman — August 10, 2007 @ 9:06 am
The Democrats should have (if they were going to go along with this at all) publiclly told Bush that he can have this program (one that he says is essential to the safety of the American people) only if he firers Alberto G. That way, we wouldn't have to worry about the program (Bush will never fire Alberto) and he would be shown to choose loyalty to his friend over the rest of the people. If he did fire Alberto, well then at least he would be gone and not involved in the program.
Comment by Michael McFadden — August 10, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
sailorman, it's funny that at the end of your anti-surveillance tirade you seem very happy about the possibility that Hil will use the tools you so despise not just to eavesdrop but to detain. And for what, for opinions? That demonstrates the level of your commitment to freedom.
Clearly all power can be abused by anybody. I'm all for publically available lists, with foreign group identification excluded of who has been targeted. That should prevent most abuses. In fact, it's not the ability for Bush and his buddies to unilaterally decide who to target that I'm interested in, but the lack of delay that prior review entails. If Harry Reid could personally review every phone call listened to 15 minutes after that happened, I'd be all for it.
As for the estimates of radicalized Muslims, consider this:
The Norwegian organization Fafo found, in a face-to face survey with 1849 respondents aged 18 years and above in the West Bank and Gaza in the period November 21-10 December that "Support for Al Qaeda actions in the world includes 65 percent support to Al Qaeda actions in the USA and Europe, 32 percent support for Al Qaeda actions in Iraq and 13 percent support for Al Qaeda actions in Jordan."
A recent opinion poll of British Muslims, which Timothy Garton Ash wrote about this morning, makes for sobering reading. Only 31 percent support free speech if it offends religious groups. Seventy-eight percent want those who published the cartoons of Muhammad to be punished. A mere 29 percent believe the Holocaust happened as history teaches it. Forty-five percent are convinced that 9/11 was an American/Israeli conspiracy—and that number rises to 51 percent among Muslims aged 18-24. Thirty percent would rather live under sharia rather than British law and 28 percent would like Britain to become an Islamic state. Eleven percent have firmly decided that British foreign policy justified the July 7th bombings, and 31 percent of young Muslims agree with this idea. Sadly, this is no rogue poll. Other surveys have come up with very similar results.
"Seven per cent believe that the events of 9/11 were “completely justified”. In Saudi Arabia, 79 per cent had an “unfavourable view” of the US.
Gallup’s Centre for Muslim Studies in New York carried out surveys of 10,000 Muslims in ten predominantly Muslim countries. One finding was that the wealthier and better-educated the Muslim was, the more likely he was to be radicalised.
The surveys were carried out in 2005 and 2006. Along with an earlier Gallup survey in nine other countries in 2001, they represent the views of more than 90 per cent of the world’s Muslims. A further 1,500 Muslims in London, Paris and Berlin are involved in a separate poll to be published in April. "
sailorman, search for the recent beheadings in the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq. Every single day brings another story of an atrocity, hostages killed and mutilalated, a demonstration demanding that someone is killed for their speech or religious affiliation. There are websites dedicated to detailing the waves of killings and threats, around the clock and around the world. When I said someone is "radicalized" that doesn't mean that they are donning a ski-mask and carrying an AK-47, I'm talking about their belief systems.
And when I'm talking about suspecting someone because of their ideology, if they are calling for the violent demise of the US, they are suspect. Free speech should not be abridged, but why should it be ignored?
Comment by Igor R. — August 10, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
He wouldn't dare fire Gonzo. Gonzo is the lid on the can of worms. The crime family's firewall so to speak.
After all, that's what a consigliere Does!!
Comment by sailorman — August 10, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
Faux Cue Andy Hose…
* Iraq, has absolutely nothing to do with our national security and arguing that fact doesn't make it so… just makes one looker dumber than Bush. * Bush spends his 400+ days on vacation in Texas for the monthly entertainment……
Trackback by 100 monkeys typing. — August 14, 2007 @ 8:51 am
I realize this is not the purpose of the article, however, I cannot help but find irony in using Patrick Henry's famous line in an attempt to increase awareness of the government's violation of our liberties, when a major motivator for Henry (and others) in promoting the revolution was the fear of the British freeing the American slaves. I do not mean to cause a heated debate, but just to show how people will always act out of their own interest, no matter how hypocrytical. Furthermore, winners write history. So if we "win" this "war" (another conversation), it may go unnoticed how much we actually have been stripped of our freedoms and set a precedent for the future. That is the scary part.
Comment by Freewheeler — August 16, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Mr. Budowsky,
I read your blogs on Huffpo and here and have agreed with EVERY word you say…scary.
My frustration is that most Americans are unaware or do not care what is happening to our Liberties. I believe the main reason is media consolidation and 91 percent of talk radio spews the WH Propaganda. They control the message and debate. Until the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated and we stop the likes of R. Murdoch from buying every newspaper etc. we will continue down this destructive Orwellian path.
I agree…I am much more afraid of these actions than a terrorist attack.We used to be a brave Country.what happened?
Comment by Lynne Gillooly — August 17, 2007 @ 4:28 pm