If this is the Al Gore that’s going to show up, I’ll gladly support him for President in 2008. If he speaks truthfully and from the heart and runs on his competence and commitment to traditional American Constitutional values, I’ll march through fire to get him elected. If he’s going to run the same kind of timid poll-driven, focus group campaign, then he should stay home and make way for leaders of greater courage.
But the important part of the speech, which is one of the greatest political speeches given by an American in my lifetime, is not about 2008, it’s about today. I found myself agreeing with everything he said.
Before preview, I was going to quote his proposed courses of action, but I see I have beaten to it by Left Hand of Dorkness, so I will just add this bit he left out, which seems :
I found article five especially interesting. He calls on American companies to resist illegal orders coming from the NSA and the executive branch. That’s a new one on me, but it makes perfect sense. It is also a signal that citizens should resist illegal acts if so ordered by the government. I would also call for librarians and bookstores not to turn over records if ordered with a National Security letter instead of a warrant and not to comply with the gag order that goes along with it.
So, supporters of illegal warrantless wiretapping, should Mr. Gore’s communications be monitored, since he is now advocating civil disobedience? Does that make him a potential terrorist who is such a danger to the War on Terror that he must be monitored, warrant or no? Is the president empowered to order such steps? If he did, would be justified? And what about me? I have just publiclly stated my support for Mr. Gore’s call for civil disobiendence. I speak out against the war in Iraq at every opportunity. Should my calls be monitored? Should I be surveiled as a danger? Can the President order my communications intercepted without a warrant? Should he? Can the President order me to be detained indefinitely as an enemy combatant without access to a lawyer?
My first reaction to this was a “c’mon, that’s not at all what they’ve been doing.” What they’ve admitted to is to monitoring conversations between foreign suspected terrorists and US citizens–bad, but not as bad as what you’re suggesting.
On the other hand, that’s what they admitted to after they got caught doing it: before they got caught, they denied that they were doing any such thing (at least, that’s my understanding of events). And this is precisely Gore’s point: absent adequate oversight of the executive branch, they can claim whatever powers they want for themselves, and nobody will know when, or whether, they’re obeying the law.
Executives administrations in the past have abused wiretapping to spy on their political enemies, and we know that this branch is abusing executive power; do we really trust them when they deny that they’re abusing it to spy on their enemies?
I ain’t saying they are. I’m saying that if we can’t be sure they’re not, the system has broken down.
Yes, Left Hand, that’s right. Without judicial oversight, we don’t know who is being targeted. Wiretapping can be a legitimate, useful tool of law enforcement. It can also be tool of political opression. Without judicial oversight, we don’t know how the tool is being used. If the President is the one who defines who is a suspected terrorist and who is not, what is to stop him from labeling his political opponents as terrorists on the grounds that opposition to him is tanamount to wanting to overthrow the government? And since he has already said that his powers as Commander in Chief allow him to do anything he wants in a time of war, what’s to stop him from declaring his political opponents enemy combatants and sending them to Gitmo? Witness this troubling comment in today’s New York Times
In his speech, Gore quotes a dean of the Presdent’s ala mater:
What’s surprising about Bush being a lying bastard?
That’s the way to slap that bastard around!
All in all a really great speech. I have been under the impression that our national leaders have been either not paying attention to what Bush is up to, or ignoring it for their own reasons. Gore at least has shown that he “gets it.” Now can we make sure Bush gets what he deserves?
I follow his argument but don’t reach his conclusion.
Instead of a dog that won’t hunt, we’ve got a dead horse getting whipped. You cannot utter the words ‘9/11’ and have it magically change statutes. I don’t find it all hard to see a Supreme Court second guessing that judgement. What I get from his reasoning was that it was not to be done on US citizens, but doggone it 9/11 changed everything and no court is going to get in his way.
As much as you may like McCain, I think a run by him is wishful thinking. I don’t think he would wear well in a grueling campaign and the abrasive part of his personality would begin to show through.
I have dreams of a McCain vs Gore election. One where I can get behind one of the candidates and strongly support them, and be almost as proud if the other wins. An election where I know I will be feeling confident instead of baffled on inauguration day.
Which should tell you that reasonable people can disagree about this.
Yes, I agree that Al is whipping a dead horse. Did you see Michael Kinsley’s editorial today? I can’t link to the Washington Post right now, but if you go on their website, you’ll find it: Give Me Liberty or Let Me Think About It.
Yeah, I read it - he makes the excellent point that even if you are willing to sacrifice some freedom for practical security, this administration still has no defense for their actions - there was no reason to circumvent the law if their motives were what they said.
And maybe Al’s whipping a dead horse, but damn it, the masses don’t seem to hear things until they’re repeated 8,000 times. That’s exactly what Limbaugh and Hannity do - it’s what Clinton did - you repeat the message unwaveringly.
It was bread and circus’s for the converted. But it was well delivered. I wouldn’t vote for Gore on a bet but it was a good speech, especially if you can filter out all the candy for the Dems…and there was a LOT of candy. I can see why the Dems here all have hardon’s now.
I think it’s a good idea for Congress to investigate this issue. Whether it’s a special prosecutor or some Congressional committee doesn’t make to much difference to me.
I don’t know enough about current whistel blower laws to know if we need to improve them. Do you know what the weakness in current law is?
The other 3 are overreactions (although I’m not sure how #3 differs from #1). He wants to stop an ongoing National Security program w/o any evidence that any harm has been caused by it. That kind of knee-jerk response is exactly what the Democrats need to avoid if they want the American people to take them seriously on the issue of National Security.
So I guess the discussion will center on Gore after all :).
Okay. John, you seem to be saying that a speech like Gore’s would lead to Americans not taking him seriously. Do you think that fewer Americans would take him seriously in 2008 if he gave such a speech than took him seriously in 2000 sans speech?
I don’t at all expect him to run, but if he did, it wouldn’t surprise me to see him as a very strong candidate, maybe the Democratic version of Nixon.
Sure, I’ll take a shot at it vibrotronica, FWIW. I don’t see ‘Gore’s five points of action’ specifically in the speech, but I’ll try and pick out what I see as action type points and comment. If I miss some feel free to put em in and I’ll be happy to give you my thoughts. John Mace’s thoughts are probably worth more (assuming he comes back to give them ).
I agree that an independent investigation should be launched…as non-partisan as possible. They need to look into the legality of what was done…and also into how we should handle things in the future.
I’m not sure how necessary this is. There are already whistleblower protection laws on the books IIRC…whats wrong with the current laws? IANAL so perhaps someone could explain the current short comings.
Yeah…Congress will get things done Im’ sure. This sounds like fluff to me…I think the idea of an independent investigation is better. If that investigation brings back anything THEN perhaps Congress can get in the act. Getting in before is simply a photo op IMHO.
I agree completely. Probably still political fluff and chum for the Dems, but its chum that also is appealing to me. Again I think it should hinge on whatever (if anything) is found by the independent investigation (though of course I’m all for cutting the things anyway…I’m a libertarian after all )
No, I think this is BS. Until things are investigated and a definite finding of illegal activity is passed down (assuming one is), I don’t think anything this hard and fast should be implimented. Nor do I think that Gore actually thinks something this unilateral is likely to happen. This is alms for the converted…gets their blood up and all that. Now…if instead he wants to put some kind of oversight on this in the interrim…well, I might agree with that. And IF this independent investigation comes back with definite illegal activity…well, then I think that impeachment should be seriously considered.
I realize I wasn’t invited to comment on Gore’s five point plan, but I thought I’d offer my comments anyway. Following xtisme’s breakdown of the speech, but reorganized to suit my nefarious purposes :
I think it’s premature to have either a special prosecutor or Congressional investigation of the allegations because we don’t know if the President has done anything wrong. Such investigations may eventually become a good idea, but it’s certainly premature until the Supreme Court rules on the issue. And since neither Congress nor the special prosecutor would have the ability to determine whether a crime was committed (that power lies solely with the Courts), it would be silly to ask them to investigate something that may be legal.
I’ve also written at length here on the SDMB about my feelings on why Congressional investigations are generally ridiculous. I was speaking then about the 9/11 Commission, but I think most of my arguments apply with even more force here. Specifically, I think Congressional investigations are a farce, conducted for purposes of political grandstanding rather than revealing the truth. And since we’ve already got all the means we need to conduct our own investigations and arrive at our own conclusions – the 1st Amendment, subpoena powers in the Courts, etc. – then I generally don’t need some politico speaking for me.
I’m against this for a couple of reasons. First, I don’t see any reason why the existing protections are inadequate. Second, I don’t like the idea of allowing folks who’ve sworn to keep information secret to disregard those promises based on their own amateur guesses as to what the Constitution might require. If they’re reporting illegal activity, that’s fine. But these folks generally aren’t lawyers, and if they’re reporting things that turn out to be legal, they’ve just breached national security for no good reason. In that case, I say there should be consequences. So I think a good rule will encourage Washington’s career bureaucrats to follow the instructions of the elected representatives – as they’re supposed to – and will encourage them to only report things that are clearly illegal.
Again, I’m not so sure there have been abuses. And I don’t know what “extensive new powers” he’s talking about, so I can’t really comment on those.
If he’s talking about the information regarding who was speaking to whom, that’s not private information and the government doesn’t need a warrant for it. That’s been established by a long line of US Supreme Court cases. So I don’t think the phone company should stop cooperating with law enforcement in that regard. If there’s other information that’s actually private and the phone company is revealing, I can’t comment because I don’t know what it is.
Yes, because 9/11 changed everything. Now, before you hit me for saying that ( ), in the area of national security, 9/11 did change how Americans perceive politicians. Besides, in 2000, there would’ve been no basis for such a speech.
But Gore’s problems go beyond the goodness or badness of this speech. If the Democrats nominate him in '08, they might as well invert Clinton’s slogan and talk about building a bridge to the 20th Century. He’s a loser, and Americans don’t cotton to a loser. One of the biggest criticism you hear about the Democrats is that they haven’t come up with new policies, they just keep criticizing the Republicans. What would a Gore nomination say about that, other than: Here’s the same 'ol thing we served up 8 years ago. It would look like an attempt to redo the 2000 election. Only the 10% that makes up the radical left is still stuck on that.
He was a loser. Now, he’s a statesman, and a hearkening back to the best times in recent American history. This isn’t his first electrifying speech. He’s gotten really good, and he’s on firm moral ground.
If he runs, I think it’s his. I’d vote for him over McCain. Because I respect the man. I may disagree with most of his economic positions, but I also know that he’s studied the issues well, and he can be convinced otherwise. On the other hand, his wife I can do without…
Still, I am a big Gore fan. Gore/Murtha? Gore/Barack Obama?
Against McCain/? Who do we have on the Republican side? Still, Clinton came out of nowhere. Still, I’m looking at my gut, and the resonance his name has, and I think it’s a heckload better than Hillary.
But it was well delivered. I wouldn’t vote for Gore on a bet but it was a good speech, especially if you can filter out all the candy for the Dems…and there was a LOT of candy. I can see why the Dems here all have hardon’s now.
: