I can’t seem to write short posts anymore like normal bloggers. What’s going on? Once I get started…
The man on the left is Thomas Paine, an American Revolution-era political philosopher, journalist, and pamphleteer who openly ad…

Stranger things have happened I suppose, but the Times and other papers still need to be reminded, by watching this old cartoon, of the consequences of their reporting.The Times reporting is clear – this is a good program; ending it…

Our primary concern is indeed national security; without it there will be no freedoms. Yet maintaining those freedoms is obviously also a vital interest.

Now you’re being absolutist. :-) Attacks on America, whether by terrorists or by a legitimate army, do not necessarily reduce freedom. Sure, if terrorists or a foreign government took over the country, our freedom would likely vanish, but such a task is hardly within the capabilities of the world’s current terrorist organizations. America wasn’t less free when the 9/11 attacks were taking place. Less safe, yes. But not less free.

But it seems that privacy is your SOLE concern without even a casual acknowledgment of the need for safety.

The government doesn’t have an obligation to keep me safe (and even if it did, it is an impossible task… absolute safety is out of the reach of even the most Totalitarian of governments). It does, however, have an obligation to uphold and respect my rights. I just have a more individualist (as opposed to collectivist) view on safety. If a burglar broke into my apartment, I’d go for my gun, not complain about how the government failed to protect me. Once the expectation that the government must (or even will) protect you has evaporated, it’s much easier to favor freedom.

Do you agree that in times of crisis some privacy rights may be curtailed? Do you support that notion – or do you think no crisis or threat should ever limit freedoms or privacy?

Where such legal provisions have been made, as in states of emergency, and declarations of martial law. But these should be temporary in the extreme.

A couple more questions: do you consider yourself a classic paleo-conservative? A libertarian? Both?

I consider myself libertarian, a classical liberal, an individualist and a capitalist. Definitely not paleo-conservative. I voted for Bush in 2004, as a lesser of two evils. I’m fairly disappointed with him, mostly on issues relating to abandonment of core conservative/libertarian issues like government expansion (health care, education, regulation, subsidies) but also on some liberal (again, classically liberal, not “left”) issues such as trying to put a gay marriage ban in the Constitution, and Constitutional disdain in general. He got some good originalist judges on the SCOTUS, which is the high point of his legacy, for me.

And a last question that I think might explain much about your differing perspective: do you or do you not believe we are currently fighting a war?

Not in the traditional sense. We fought a war in Afghanistan, and we fought one in Iraq, but once their governments were toppled, they ceased being wars. And with regards to the general “war on terror,” if your declared enemy is a concept, (drugs, pornography, terrorism) rather than a well-defined group, it is only a “war” in the sense of it being an effort to eliminate something undesirable. There can be no surrender, there is no uniform, there is no single leader, there is no measure by which the war can ever be declared to be over. It’s an effort against a concept.

Of course, that’s just my opinion on the matter. Legally, it isn’t a war, because Congress hasn’t passed a war resolution against “terrorism.”

I notice you sort of glossed over the fact that even the NYT doesn’t claim any actual abuses of privacy rights.

It mentions one instance of an “inappropriate” search, and it mentions the concerns of many officials about the program’s legality.

I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with you in principle. The problem with your position, it seems to me, is that it is absolutist. The rest of us are adopting a realist posture.

Our primary concern is indeed national security; without it there will be no freedoms. Yet maintaining those freedoms is obviously also a vital interest.

But it seems that privacy is your SOLE concern without even a casual acknowledgment of the need for safety. There has to be a balance there. A balance is realistic; absolutism is idealism here. An absolute position in either direction seems both unrealistic and dangerously short-sighted to me.

Do you agree that in times of crisis some privacy rights may be curtailed? Do you support that notion – or do you think no crisis or threat should ever limit freedoms or privacy?

A couple more questions: do you consider yourself a classic paleo-conservative? A libertarian? Both? (The anti-gun control and isolationist tone of that last post got me curious!)

And a last question that I think might explain much about your differing perspective: do you or do you not believe we are currently fighting a war?

Al Qaeda intends to fight the war right here in our cities; therefore, our government has to examine how al Qaeda is getting its funds and operators inside our country. That means our government has to examine communications and transactions that cross the borders into our country.

So they can get a warrant. They’re already several weeks behind on this financial data, so an extra 24 hours shouldn’t matter.

Since you’re against what the government has been doing, offer up some concrete, viable alternatives.

Limit these broad unwarranted data collection and search programs to foreigners. If American citizens are plotting terrorism, it’s a law enforcement issue, and should be carefully handled using traditional methods. Abolish laws that prevent citizens from being armed. Terrorism is much harder if the targets refuse to be victims. Pull our troops out of Japan, Germany, and all other places where we have lingered for half a century longer than we should have. Concentrate our military budget on defense: anti-ICBM systems that work. Invest in sustainable domestic sources of energy.

The last thing we can do is realize that it isn’t the government’s role to provide absolute safety. Much in the way that you have no legal expectation that anyone will come when you dial 9-1-1, and that the police aren’t legally required to protect you from criminal acts, people shouldn’t expect the government to fight terrorism at any cost. It’s a battle that can never be completely won without rejection of the principles on which this country was founded. Bush was attacked by Democrats for saying “I don’t think you can win [the war on terrorism]. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.” That’s not as much of a rallying cry as “victory at any cost,” but it’s realistic, and can be accomplished without changing our country for the worse.

Do you trust banks more than you trust the elected US government?

Sure I do. Banks make money by protecting my money and my private data. If they lose the trust of their customers, they’ll be dropped. When the U.S. government violates the trust of U.S. citizens, people applaud the violations as necessary to make them safer.

Again, this is basic con law; and again, if the government is over-stepping its bounds, the courts will either strike down the program or restrict it.

[...]

FOR NOW, at least, the SWIFT program is both legally valid AND classified.

Seems to me that you’re granting the government unlimited power, unless it is specifically restricted. That’s not a conservative view at all… the conservative view would be that the government has no powers except those specifically granted to it. Alexander Hamilton thought that the Bill of Rights wasn’t necessary…

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Back to you,

Join the ACLU and attack the program in the courts, if that’s your wish. Until the courts rule, don’t reveal the mechanism of the program or the information gained.

As far as I know, the Judicial branch was never made aware of this system. Congress didn’t authorize the program. How is there even a way for checks and balances to be considered, absent this leak? This is one branch of the government acting unilaterally and in secrecy. If the executive branch violates the law in the middle of the forrest and no one is there to see it, did it really happen?

Bottom light: the media ought to at least show a little common sense restraint if it cares about the safety of our people and our military. I’m not sure why that idea is so revolutionary.

With regards to military information, absolutely. Reporting on troop movement is a serious matter. See, military action doesn’t just happen because the President wants it to. There are checks and balances between branches of the government. But when the executive branch decides to go against all pre-existing interpretations of law, and use National Security Letters as a way to do what they want, when they want, to whomever they want, without checks or balances, what recourse do we have? Crossing of fingers and “we should give them the benefit of the doubt” is all I see suggested.

However, as we are all too painfully aware, there are plenty of such enemies, and they are the type that exploit the weaknesses in our system that would result from your extreme tilting to one side of the privacy spectrum, a side that does not acknowledge national security concerns.

Freedom isn’t without its downsides. It’s dangerous to your health. It offends delicate sensibilities. It allows for dangerous ideas to be spread. It can erode traditional values. So if you don’t like the idea of someone riding a motorcycle without a helmet, strip clubs, articles on how to make weapons, or openly homosexual individuals, then maybe the downsides of freedom outweigh the benefits for you. Many Americans have become sissified. The thought that someone might be able to walk onto a bus and detonate a bomb scares people. And instead of objecting to bus bombings, people object to the principles of freedom that might allow such events to take place, transferring the danger posed by bombs onto the concept of freedom. I don’t really buy into the notion that “they hate us because we’re free.” At least, that’s not why they think they hate us. But many people quote that line, and these are usually the same people advocating a reduction in our freedom to combat the threat. How marvelously French.

And finally, as other posters have alluded to, I find it ironic that you seemingly have no problem with the IRS (a federal government agency) having far more financial data about you personally than could be gained from the SWIFT program, not to mention numerous creditors that are looking for your business.

I have a huge problem with the IRS. The income tax was created, much like these “temporary” measures, in a period of war. Previously, the IRS would have been unconstitutional. And what do you know… more than a hundred years later it’s still here, harassing and intimidating American citizens and providing politicians with enough money to buy reelection and placate the proletariat with promises of safety and socialism. But that’s a sidebar.

And yeah, we’re probably just going in circles with this. If your primary concern is safety, there’s not much I can do to dissuade you.

This is very funny along those lines:
http://www.zipperfish.net/free/yaafm12.php

It deals with the muslim cartoon controversy.

***NOT SAFE FOR WORK!!!***

But as for the leak I say TREASON they should be shot and not spared.
I say give the loose-lips to our Dead Soldier’s Parents to do as they please with them…I like shoot them better.
DON’T GIVE THEM A TRIAL !
…They no longer have rights when their lips were greased up to spill our Secrets….USA ROCKS!!!! BOYCOTT NY TIMES A GREAT TERRORIST CONTRIBUTOR.
NOT IN OUR COUNTRY! WE WILL FIGHT YOU TILL THE END..

People upset about the program to search financial records were not so upset when the Clinton administration was fishing FBI files on political enemies and keeping them on pcs at home. Remember Craig Livingston, the guy who took the soft fall who to this day no one in the Clinton administration remembers hiring?

If you want a major invasion of privacy for no good reason, how about the census, which even looks into your bathroom and count toilets.

How do you fight a war of survival if you can’t track data because someone takes offense? Do agents have to go to meetings in person?

In the CTR currency transaction program banks are required to supply all transaction records over 10k to IRS. Suspicious patterns are flagged and passed on to law enforcement. That program has been following transactions inside the US for years.

If you are calling some al-Quaeda member multiple times, I want the good ole gov to follow your butt forever! We are talking anthrax, planes into buildings, dirty bombs, sarin gas, subway blasts, or just maybe a van into a crowd at a campus square. I want you tracked, followed, analyzed. If nothing else, your buddy might indicate travel plans or some other clue to save lives.

What’s the difference from a covert agent asking your neighbors how often you go to meetings after midnight, and finding 30 phone calls to a terror cell at 3:00 am in one month. The phone record scan can dredge more, faster. How fast does sarin travel in a subway tunnel?

When there is a fire in a house, firemen axe the door to get in. They don’t ask permission. They will push you aside if you try to stop them. It is called public safety.

This time she’s outdone herself. There isn’t one thing I could say that could drive home her banality and vapidity more than her own post. Her post speaks for itself.

That level of willing self-induced brainwashing, that extent of Bush-derangement-syndrome, is so vast it simply defies the imagination.

Actually there is a good respone and it was the very first thing I thought of. It’s the best line from the classic Sandler flick Billy Madison. This one’s for you, Vanya. Congrats, kid:

“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

That about covers that.

BTW-

HUNT DOWN THOSE LEAKERS AND IMPRISON THEM!!!!

Ditto, Ditto, Ditto!!

Bottom light: the media ought to at least show a little common sense restraint if it cares about the safety of our people and our military. I’m not sure why that idea is so revolutionary.

It’s because the liberals hate our military. They don’t think we should have bombs, guns, tanks, planes, etc. Or at the very least, we shouldn’t be spending as much as we are on those things. I know one lady who believes our military is NOT what keeps us free, it’s our constitution. Well, OK, our constitution does grant us our freedoms, but without a strong military, what would keep other countries from taking us over? This piece of paper???

I quite enjoyed, and agreed with, this latest issue of Hot Air regar……

Just sayin’.