Civil Liberties Hysteria Mongers Can Bite Me
By Rick Moran Posted in National Security | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have spent much of the last two years on this site railing against the hysterical, exaggerated, and ultimately dishonest charges made by people like Glenn Greenwald and others that the Bush Administration was tearing apart the Constitution and trying to set up some kind of a dictatorship.
The cornerstone of their bilious rantings has always been that the Administration's NSA intercept program was, on its face, illegal. In fact, the NSA program has been cited as reason number one to impeach the President and no amount of reasoning by those of us who cautioned against jumping to conclusions about a program that we knew so little about deflected these despicable jackanapes from wailing about our "lost freedoms" and comparing Bush to Hitler.
Well pardon my French, but the only thing I have to say to the gaggle of goofs who have spent much of the last two years in formulating some of the most vile, calumnious, and over the top charges regarding the Administration's cavalier attitude toward our civil liberties is...BITE ME:
Read on . . .
After a delay of more than a year, a government board appointed to guard Americans' privacy and civil liberties during the war on terror has been told the inner workings of the government's electronic eavesdropping program.
The briefing for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board had been delayed because President Bush was concerned -- after several media leaks -- about widening the circle of people who knew exact details of the secret eavesdropping program.
The board, created by Congress and appointed by Bush, focused on other classified work since it was named in spring 2005, but continued to press for a formal briefing by the National Security Agency.
A breakthrough was reached in recent days, and the five members were briefed by senior officials last week.
Board members said that they were impressed by the safeguards the government has built into the NSA's monitoring of phone calls and computer transmissions, and that they wished the administration could tell the public more about them to ease distrust.
"If the American public, especially civil libertarians like myself, could be more informed about how careful the government is to protect our privacy while still protecting us from attacks, we'd be more reassured," said Lanny Davis , a former Clinton White House lawyer who is the board's lone liberal Democrat.
All of that ink spilled. All of that bile vomited forth from people who didn't know what the hell they were talking about and yet accused the President and other public servants of the most horrible violations of the Constitution. All of that outrage from people less interested in our civil liberties - not to mention our national security - than they were in scoring cheap political points at the expense of a program that not only now has been shown to be well run and sensitive to civil liberties but also vital to protecting the United States from another terrorist attack.
And let us also put to rest perhaps the most ridiculous charge of all; that the President and his people simply didn't care about the Constitution:
"We found there was a great appreciation inside government, both at the political and career levels, for protections on privacy and civil liberties," said Raul, author of a book of civil liberties. "In fact, I think the public may have an underappreciation for the degree of seriousness the government is giving these protections."
Gee. Ya think? Wonder where the public got "an underappreciation for the degree of seriousness the government is giving these protections...?" Couldn't be from leftist lickspittles like Greenwald et.al. who've spent much of the last 5 years trying to convince the American people that Adolf Hitler was in the Oval Office and Nazi gaulieters were staffing the Justice Department, could it?
Just thinking about the smug, self righteous louts who have hindered every single program, every single effort to protect the people of the United States by constantly raising the specter of Hitler and dictatorship makes me sick to my stomach.
I have no doubt they'll spin this news by pointing out that there are plenty of other examples of Bush/Hitler tearing up the Constitution. But given the fact that no one in the government connected to the NSA program ever thought in their wildest dreams that any media outlet would be irresponsible enough, partisan enough, or stupid enough to reveal its existence, one can logically assume that other programs are equally careful of the Constitution and civil liberties. And this report now places the burden of proof on the civil liberties absolutists to show otherwise.
I'd say "For Shame!" except they have none. Nor do they have a case that the NSA program and its offshoots are anything except as advertised by government; as well designed as possible in order to safeguard the Constitutional protections that all of us - both liberals and conservatives - are vouchsafed as Americans.
UPDATE
Ed Morrissey, as always, puts it more delicately than I - which makes his indictment of the hysteria mongers even more devastating:
The hysteria surrounding this program might finally start receding, as long as these remarks get some significant play. After all, having a former Clinton aide wish he could reveal more about a secret program to reassure people of the good work done by it rather than to torpedo the Bush administration should raise some eyebrows among the paranoid. Former Reagan counsel Alan Raul went even further, telling John Solomon that he believes that the public underestimates the level of concern and dedication for civil liberties in the federal government.
Once again, the public's support for a tough but necessary program has been reinforced by its careful execution by the NSA. This should not surprise anyone, as even the New York Times acknowledged that they had no information that the agency broke any laws or violated anyone's civil rights when they broke the story. All they had were "concerns" about the program's legality from their anonymous tipsters.
The same could be said for every single program that these guttersnipes have been using as a club to make the Administration's commitment to the law and the Constitution suspect, undermining the public's confidence in our national leaders during a time of war, and ultimately, giving aid and comfort to the jihadis who know that they can always depend on the New York Times and their allies to give them a heads up about any attempt to thwart their plans using legitimate, constitutional methods to try and keep track of them.
So, once again…sound and fury signifying nothing. And we’ll see the NY Times with a big headline on this assessment on page one, above the fold, right? Brian Williams will lead with this story, right? Maybe at least Jon Stewart will bring it up?
Last I saw, the forecast for hell was hot and humid with no chance of snow...
It gives Congressional Democrats (and a future Democratic President) a reason not to investigate or discontinue the NSA programs. They've always known it would be politically suicidal to do so, as well as bad for national security, but now they can mute the clamor from the lunatic Left.
http://www.conservative.org/columnists/keene/060424dk.asp
(Mr. Keene is the chairman of the American Conservative Union and a managing associate with the Carmen Group, a Washington, D.C.-based governmental-affairs firm.)
Oversight Board Needs Authority, Resources
by David A. Keene and David Cole
Miami Herald
April 24, 2006
[Redacted. We respect copyright, here. - Moe Lane]
While I doubt that the Bush Administration is guilty as charged by the liberal media and I'm glad at the clean bill of health provided by the panel, I doubt it will have much effect on people's views on this subject.
Sadly, having a the board appointed by Bush appears to some like asking the fox to guard the hen house. Further detracting from the board's findings was the lack of authority to investigate and follow up claims made during the "dog and pony" show. And don't jump on my case for that saying that, we've all sat through dog and pony's shows and to think that the NSA leadership would provide anything else in this case is simply being naive.
As far as I'm concerned, creating this panel without it making it independent and giving it investigative authority was just a big waste of money. And Rick, saying it "proves" anything without those traits is - is well sir - it is just plain gullible; no offense intended. I mean would you invest in a company that was allowed to self audit itself? I didn't think so. So it is my opinion that even if the panel is factually correct, this panel's opinion is worthless simply by the nature it which is was setup and operated.
Again this is criticism of the panel's design and function and NOT of the spying program itself.
"As far as I'm concerned, creating this panel without making it independent and giving it investigative authority was just a big waste of money."
Agreed, although I think the Lanny Davis input helps counter this. BTW, the tone of the original writeup above is at least as "hysterical" as anything the program's critics have been saying. This is a reason us conservatives can't seem to convice anyone other than fellow conservatives of anything.
My "purpose" was not to convince but to chastise.
And it is obvious you don't read many lefty sites or haven't followed the colorful careers of Greenwald, Neiwert, Billmon, et al.
Otherwise, you would know that I was letting them off easy and hardly being "hysterical."
"My "purpose" was not to convince but to chastise."
Must be, because you certainly don't seem to have convinced anyone.
has brought down the wrath of the Redstate Editors in the past. I speak from personal experience.
They fire one warning shot--tops!
Great posting. :)
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
The program is illegal.
Even if it isn't being abused.
Even if it is being done with the best of intentions.
Even if there are all sorts of internal checks.
To get a wiretap, you need a warrant. You can even get them retroactively. If FISA needs streamling, it should get streamlined. Frankly, that should have been done as part of the Patriot Act.
If you have a reason why this program is, in fact, legal. I'd love to hear it.
Wick
The only case directly on point is ACLU v. NSA.
On a more basic level, I suspect we can agree that, in the normal case, the use of a wiretap requires a warrant. I haven't seen any argument that I find convincing that the NSA program is a valid exception to the general rule.
Wick
The program is illegal.
There are people who are infinitely better informed on the law than you are and who don't agree with your KnownFact™. That guy is a liberal, by the way. He just happens to be one of the few who has not fallen victim to the plauge.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Besides, I gave you infinitely more then you gave us to back up your KnownFact™ regurgitation, didn't I? Besides, we already went over this about 12,000 times back when the NYT first decided that scoring political points was more important than collection of wartime intelligence and I don't feel like rehashing it with a talking point machine again.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
No you wouldn't. If you were you wouldn't have posted this dreck.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
If you have a reason why this program is, in fact, legal. I'd love to hear it.
Powerline
JustOneMinute
Hugh Hewitt
Plus, Beldarblog, which just got active again, probably has good info.
But, I missed something. Why is it our job to explain to you, in a way you will accept, that this program is legal?
All the explanations you demand have already been given, on these three sites and many other places. Please don't ask us to do your homework for you.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
he has sonme sort of idea that he can come in here with his Democrat Party TalkingPoints™ and cr*p on the floor and everyone will just roll in awe over at the revelations he will deliver to us.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
You can write up a 750 word essay on the Administration's arguments for the NSA program, including their rationale for its legality. Primary sources only, please: we want to see the Bush Administration's position, not the recycled stuff that you've presented thus far.
We'll turn your account back on once you've sent it in via the Contact Us button. Assuming that it isn't garbage, of course.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
First, Wick and others don't know if wiretaps are even used. The entire rationale for opposing this program has been based on the idea that it uses familiar technology and techniques that are similar to those used by law enforcement.
As many of us have been pointing out for years, no one bloody knows that! While its existence is known, the program's methods are still a secret. And when FULLY briefed by NSA officials, the Privacy Board came to the conclusion that our "civil liberties" (one assumes they mean the 4th amendment protections) are carefully observed. This would seem to indicate that there are some technological issues beyond that which neither Mr. Prick...er, Wick and his liberal friends can fathom.
Facts don't matter; only KnownFacts™ do.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.