So every time some Donk raises the high hackles about her congresscritters' ever-unfolding capitulation on the surveillance-state issue of the day, she must ad that
FISA is perfectly fine to protect the country from terrorists while respecting civil liberties.Perhaps you, like I, wonder how a secret administrative court whose opaque decisions are not subject to public knowledge or review and which uniformly and universally grants the government whatever it desires, preemptively and retroactively alike, "respect[s] civil liberties." Naderites!
They ought to get rid of the Ass and remake their mascot as Pierrot Lunaire.
8 comments:
Msr.IOZ,
Thank you, fine sir, for pointing out something that has long been driving me nuts about Big Libs' thinking, as posted on some of the more famous blogs.
Before we discovered what the Bushites had been up to, circumventing the secret FISA courts because they were "too restrictive" (read: couldn't be bothered with all that unnecessary paperwork), we were told - by The Nation and others - that these secret administrative courts and judges were a threat to our civil liberties.
What has changed about the courts' makeup, or function, since we were told that former fact?
Tom Truthful
That's by dday, the new co-blogger. He's a Penis-American. Not important of course, just sayin' for the record.
Star Chambers are sort of not conducive to civil liberties, kind of by definition. Of course, this administration is actively opposed to civil liberties which is certainly a reasonable order of magnitude worse than the acceptance of FISA the Democrats feel compelled to accept.
Does it not occur to anyone that when Abdul ala Chang Putin Smith gets picked up by the police -- local, state or secret -- either here in in IraqAfghanAbsurdistahn that the bad guys figure out that somehow or another they got monitored and picked up and all that?
Now, search warrants can be issued without the advance knowledge of the lucky winner. If we say that FISA allows for search warrants as is allowed in RICO and related things, I can understand and accept the logic even if from a purist point of view, I disagree with the infringement.
But, search warrants in RICO cases and wiretapping orders have some relevance. If the order is for every phone and IP address in an area code or a neighborhood -- little Baghdad, for example, in Detroit, that's a pretty heavy hand.
Here's another question? Lets say that there are some "freedom fighters" getting ready to do something to a regime we dislike in so, Myanmar, and the leaders reside in little Baghdad. So, when NSA sweeps up the info, what will our benevolent dictatorship do with it? They are, of course, terrorists using one definition. Fucking over Myanmar would do what, disrupt KMarts supply chain? And we would care because? On the other hand, they are terrorists, goddamn it. The Taliban and the Shiites and the goddamn Symbionese Memorial Liberation Army are all terrorists. So, do they all get chopped, or just the ones we don't like?
Silly IOZ, don't you know the Overton Window passed by that way long ago, never to return? We've progressed and become enlightened. Don't be a backward reactionary.
look, every liberal knows that SOMETIMES government secrecy is necessary in order to protect us, but not when republicans are in charge. then it's called a "power grab".
Hi folks,
I've been enjoying reading the postings and comments, being a disaffected, former Atrios reader.
I am not quite up to speed on some of the terminology used here.
Donk/Donkle for instance.
Could anyone do the honors and explain to this slow, old, white guy what that term means?
Thanks.
Donk/Donkle
Used mainly to refer to the Democratic party, but can include the managerially minded (cf Taylorism) field agents who are interested in efficiently harvesting souls, money and votes in its behalf.
Thanks.
Scary shit - that Taylorism stuff.
Post a Comment