Eric Posner writes:
A lengthy quote, but when a guy says something right and says it well, it’s foolish to try to improve on it. I agree; I thought President Obama’s speech yesterday afternoon sent this precise message, and we are where we are.
Yep - very sad. And unfortunately, foreseeable by the many of us who opposed the erosion on so many fronts under the guise of “emergency.”
But I guess if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about, right? :rolleyes:
I didn’t read the name of the author properly, and thought that Dick Posner was being unusually forthright, even for him, and that I knew in what Circuit anyone was going to bring a challenge to any security legislation.
Good piece, accurate and more than a little depressing.
There are two elements in play here.
- Are these kinds of measures an example of wise social policy?
-and-
- Were these kinds of measures an artifact solely of the repressive, right-wing, evil Cheney / Rove cabal, sure to be dismantled when the enlightened Democrats took power?
(1) is obviously a matter ripe for discussion and debate. (2) seems settled: no.
re: (2), of course you realize that someone who were actually interested in an honest discussion could phrase it far less inflammatory manner. But I expect no less from you.
You’d have to be pretty naive to think otherwise. Civil liberties are on a ratchet - it is very easy to remove them, very hard to reinstate them (even if the present administration wanted to, which I am not 100% convinced of).
There simply isn’t the reward for it out there, and the risk (in political, not real terms) is huge. An attack after restoring civil liberties will be seen by a significant percentage as a result of restoring the civil liberties, whether it was or not. What we need is to educate people that civil liberties make us safer. They aren’t a trade off, and that reducing them or not restoring them makes attacks more likely. That 9-11 hasn’t been repeated isn’t because of the USAPatriot Act, but despite it. But as long as people think such policies make them safer, there isn’t the ability to change them - no attacks and lower civil liberties is seen as vindicating the policies, whereas attacks and lower civil liberties simply provides an excuse for further erosion of rights.
We saw it in the UK with bullshit like the Prevention of Terrorism Act. And it just keeps getting worse.
Which, of course, is why we need a strong judiciary to defend civil liberties…
And you may look here for a lesson on how to ignore what *you *perceive as snark in a political debate.
I was thinking the same thing as the OP, but it expresses it so much better.
After 9/11 the liberals bleated that Bush was just using that as an “excuse” to strip us of civil liberties by implementing more stringent restrictions and regulations on airline travel. But they’re curiously silent now that Obama is doing the exact same thing in the wake of the underwear bomber incident.
On second thought, it really isn’t that curious when viewed through the opaque lens of “Bush = evil, Obama = good”.
Yeah. I laughed at all my friends who thought everything was going to change when Obama was elected. Even if it did change drastically, it would only change back as soon as the republican’s got back in office. There is no real advancement in a two party system, but I guess that is another debate.
We had somewhat similar legislation enacted in Canada after September 11th, but it also contained “sunset” clauses, that were to expire after the emergency conditions were over. It appears that they were reviewed after five years, then extended for another five years in spite of never having been used, so faint hope remains that they will be abolished in time.
Then put me firmly in the fringe!
And there is the problem. Terrorism will NEVER be over. It’s a tactic, not a political ideology. Basically what they are saying is that we never get civil liberties back until political violence has been eradicated from society.
Villa is right. Political change is hard, and inertia is powerful. Once that stuff is in place, it’s difficult to remove. If their voting base isn’t being rounded up and detained indefinitely, who wants to spend their political capital on removing it?
Did the Patriot Act get reauthorized? I thought it ran out last year.
We’ve had bad scares before, lasting for multiple years, resulting in snubbing the Constitution. We’ve always regained our senses eventually, though.
It’s disturbing, sure, but it will pass this time too.
It just makes it near impossible to respond to an apparently simple statement, when you first have to identify the 5 or more words/phrases in a single sentence that you consider unnecessarily inflammatory, irrelevant, or inaccurate. Party 1 throws out 1 sentence full of distortions and innuendo, which can only be responded to in several paragraphs. IMO, folks pushing specific agendas (liberal, conservative, or other) enjoy introducing such BS into what could be a straightforward discussion, because it then provides them additional opportunities to recharacterize the debate, and can distract others down irrelevant alleys.
And lawyers love tossing out that kind of crap, because whatever the response, they can say “That’s not what I meant.” Or they can choose to contest any segregated portion of the response instead of defending their initial statement.
I have no interest in debating whether “these kinds of measures [were] an artifact solely of the repressive, right-wing, evil Cheney / Rove cabal, sure to be dismantled when the enlightened Democrats took power?”
I would be happy to maintain, however, that the Bush administration took advantage of many opportunities to erode civil liberties. Then we would get back to the OP’s (1), where I would contend that the measures went beyond what was reasonably needed to respond to any threat, the costs outweighed the benefits, and they only meant sense in support of a previously existing agenda. (Does anyone believe the Patriot Act was written in the days following 9/11?
I would have opposed such efforts no matter which party were in power. In fact, my opposition to increased “law and order” policies such as (just one example) lessened probable cause/consent for searches substantially predated 2000.
Well… that made a heck of a lot more sense, and impact, than your first reply. Thanks.
However, what I still see is “It’s all Bush’s fault!! And… uh, well gosh Obama can’t change it now. So it’s all Bush’s fault!!”
But it isn’t that Obama is just keeping the status quo, he’s adding MORE restrictions!! So the argument that Obama simply can’t undo what Bush did falls flat. Obama is adding to what Bush did!
So… if what Bush did was bad, why is Obama doing even more of it?
Plus, in the US at least, most of these policies don’t directly affect most voters. The only provisions that most Americans notice and complain about are airline security, which was around for a long time. Some Arab and Muslim Americans have had problems with law enforcement since 9/11, but the most egregious goverment actions, torture and Gitmo and whatnot, happen to third world foreigners most Americans have no connection to and couldn’t care less about.
I think talking about persistence of policies misses a couple of things. Firstly i’d say a better version would be to say that it indicates politically acceptable/politically unacceptable to lose points, which isn’t necessarily the same as “mainstream”. Too, I think it misses out that while policies may persist from one to another, it can be quite a different matter in terms of beginning such an approach and ending it; if the previous administration, too, had inherited this situation, then it would be a more reasonable point, but in essence the political question in each situation is different; it’s “is it politically viable or popular to remove these policies?” for Obama now, but it was that question plus originally “is it politically viable or popular to enact these policies” for Bush. I would argue that there are significant factors, even just in terms of it being more difficult to end rather than begin any political approach, that mean that a mainstream view can’t be considered to be as persistent as the legislation.
Not that it’s an entirely unreasonable view. But I think the quote goes too far.
I am sorry that my effort at sarcastic humor has been taken so seriously. I truly do endorse the far less inflammatory tone taken by the quote in the OP:
It is this assertion that invites serious debate; I offered up a very tongue-in-cheek summary with the “repressive, evil Cheney” thing and did not intend for it to be taken as anything other than humor.
I withdraw it in its entirety.