Comments on: Has The President Gone Too Far?

By: Ryan Bonneville

Ryan Bonneville — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 04:52:35 +0000

I just want to add a “hear, hear” to peter’s comments. While my objections are far less consequentialist (I don’t care whose conversation gets chilled, it’s just plain wrong and unconstitutional for the White House to be spying on people with absolutely no judicial oversight), I think the point about the chilling effect this has on various groups is well-considered.

By: peter

peter — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:25:19 +0000

Or, to quote Buffalo Springfield: it’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound, everybody look what’s going down…

By: peter

peter — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:05:03 +0000

I would not be chilled (does this mean I’m excluded from the Coalition of the Chillin’?), but put yourself in the shoes of a 23 year old Muslim man. Let’s suppose you want to have an open discussion with your Muslim friends about what is going on in the world. Would you act any differently if you knew that the government might be listening to your conversation?

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:41:46 +0000

peter, I don’t think your chilling effect analogy has much validity in this instance – will you or anyone you know REALLY decline to talk freely on the telephone now? Seriously…

On the other hand, someone communicating with terrorists very well may after the Times’ story…it would seem the wrong people will get ‘chilled’…

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:39:26 +0000

Well, two Democrats that we know for sure knew about this, from press accounts, were former Senator Bob Graham and then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi – Graham claims that the briefing was misleading and nothing seemed amiss, Pelosi that she expressed her serious concerns – and both of them can’t be right (or else the conclusion is that Graham is quite dense)…

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:50:39 +0000

Yes, good question Peter. And because this is about national security, we need to understand the following very fast:

1. Why does the Bush Administration feel the need to bypass current laws? What’s the rationale?

2. Why does the Bush Administration believe their actions are constitutional? What logic did they use to justify this?

3. Who did they inform in Congress, and when?

4. How many people have been spied on under this new policy? And who were the victims? A judge should rule if there is a security threat before each name is released. If no threat, people have a right to know if their government is illegally spying on them.

Until these questions are answered, I want Congress and the Judicial Branch to put a stop to this spying.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:49:29 +0000

“Nobody declines to drive a car because they find getting a driver’s license abhorrent.”

The LP’s 2004 presidential nominee does. (Or at least he doesn’t have a license.)

By: peter

peter — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:39:38 +0000

I’m not sure that I would agree that “both parties are in collusion to deny us our constitutional rights,” but Joe makes a good point — who in Congress knew, and when did they know it?

Apparently Arlen Specter is not among those who knew — it would also be interesting to know if those who were told had a predisposition to go along with the wiretaps (unlike Specter, who could be counted on to object) –

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:36:31 +0000

And another point: where were the Democrats on this? According to Bush, he briefed some members of Congress on what he was doing. I assume he informed Democrats, as well. Didn’t they raise a red flag? Why didn’t they oppose this? It’s clearly a power grab by the Executive Branch. What were they thinking?

Can’t we at least rely on the party in opposition to help keep a check on the party in power? What good is a two-party system when both parties are in collusion to deny us our constitutional rights?

By: peter

peter — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:34:50 +0000

I think that considering drivers licenses and passports to be an encroachment of liberty takes a pretty expansive view of what liberty is. In order to protect public safety, the government has a legitimate right to make sure that drivers can pass a test to be licensed. In order to protect private property, the government has a right to make sure that cars and their drivers are registered so that, in the event of a car accident, the drivers are identifiable and accountable. (To continue: in order to protect public safety, the government has the right to register firearms, so that if they are used in the commission of a crime, the criminal can be more easily apprehended).

I think the criterion you want to use is whether the government’s action has a chilling effect. Nobody declines to drive a car because they find getting a driver’s license abhorrent (OK, the trip to the DMV sucks, but that’s a different issue). However, people will speak less freely if they think the government is listening to their conversation.

This is not to say that electronic surveillance is necessarily wrong: only to say that because it has a chilling effect, its use should be debated openly and the facts transparent to all.