Now what?

A mishmash of thoughts on religion, life, technology, and whatnot.

Paul to GOP: Stop Acting Like Democrats

Apparently the youth vote, once again did not materialize, contrary to opinion, which confirms what Chuck Todd was saying on NBC. This election was about Bush, Bush, and Bush.


I hope that some folks actually checked out the Naomi Wolf documentary I posted a few days ago. It really is frightening how intrusive our government is becoming. And now from today's New York Times, here's some more evidence that the Bush administration is accelerating it's instrusion into our lives:

CIVIL LIBERTIES We don’t know all of the ways that the administration has violated Americans’ rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Last month, Attorney General Michael Mukasey rushed out new guidelines for the F.B.I. that permit agents to use chillingly intrusive techniques to collect information on Americans even where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
Agents will be allowed to use informants to infiltrate lawful groups, engage in prolonged physical surveillance and lie about their identity while questioning a subject’s neighbors, relatives, co-workers and friends. The changes also give the F.B.I. — which has a long history of spying on civil rights groups and others — expanded latitude to use these techniques on people identified by racial, ethnic and religious background.
The administration showed further disdain for Americans’ privacy rights and for Congress’s power by making clear that it will ignore a provision in the legislation that established the Department of Homeland Security. The law requires the department’s privacy officer to account annually for any activity that could affect Americans’ privacy — and clearly stipulates that the report cannot be edited by any other officials at the department or the White House.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has now released a memo asserting that the law “does not prohibit” officials from homeland security or the White House from reviewing the report. The memo then argues that since the law allows the officials to review the report, it would be unconstitutional to stop them from changing it. George Orwell couldn’t have done better.

....

One last-minute change Mr. Bush won’t be making: He apparently has decided not to shut down the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — the most shameful symbol of his administration’s disdain for the rule of law.
Mr. Bush has said it should be closed, and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and his secretary of defense, Robert Gates, pushed for it. Proposals were prepared, including a plan for sending the real bad guys to other countries for trial. But Mr. Cheney objected, and the president has refused even to review the memos. He will hand this mess off to his successor.

See... this is exactly what I mean. Why in the world would you vote to continue this kind of stuff? Sure, they're not investigating and infiltrating my sunday school class. But they could put us all under surveillance if they wanted to. Without any evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Sure that's not likely, but as we've seen, technological advances in surveillance have resulted in pretty much all phone traffic being screened now.

Apparently it takes all kinds of hearings and legislative work to undo this stuff, that's why they're cramming it in now.

Will Obama be any better? He voted for FISA and the Patriot Act. He claims he added some protection for civil liberties into it, but that's a little bit like instead of me deciding to cut both your legs off, I just decide to cut off each leg up to your knee. It was still not a good bill.

McCain would've been just as bad or worse though.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken

Activity

2 total comments, leave your comment or trackback.
  1. Matthew Wurtele
    Nov 6th 2008

    Be fair. There are very few ways to combat terrorism without closing in on civil liberties. It’s a trade-off you have to make. The Patriot Act is a way to attack the resources of terrorists by allowing the government to get into peoples’ assets easier.

    Of course, there are definitely ways to use this that could be considered unconstitutional–the courts just haven’t really addressed them that much. I’m just playing Devil’s advocate here.

    And this whole commenting on your posts thing would be a lot easier if you’d quit being so dang high-tech and post directly too livejournal like the rest of us.

  2. Winston
    Nov 6th 2008

    Yeah, I know, but I get most of my comments from LJ folks. I wanted them on my real blog.

    I would argue that it’s a trade-off we shouldn’t be making. Look at how they’re behaving. They infiltrated protest groups prior to the U.S. political conventions, and some claim that they dropped in fake protestors to cause enough trouble to get different groups arrested.

    Let’s not forget that they used to spy on Martin Luther King, Jr. And now that sort of behavior is legal. Is that really what we want?


Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word