Now THAT I did NOT expect from you.
Thanks!
The bottom line is that politicians find it nearly impossible to give up on any kind of power even if they think they wouldn’t have it in an ideal world. And yes, political inertia is strong, so yesterday’s controversial proposal becomes mainstream if the people who are opposed to it can’t do anything about it.
Portions of it expired, and if memory serves, Obama wants some of them renewed.
Except that terrorism isn’t a serious threat. So we gave up civil liberties even though there isn’t a threat that justifies what we have given up. And terrorism has no end. Terrorism is just politically motivated violence carried out by non-state actors. There is no way to stop terrorism except to remove all inequity from society, or at least enough inequity that people will no feel that violence is their only recourse. As long as there are conflicting political ideologies who are able to convince themselves rightly or wrongly that they are victims, we will have terrorism. So essentially that means that the civil liberties are gone permanently, sold out for a really pathetic reason.
Obama is doing what the people want. The people are calling for enhanced security measures, and by golly they’ll get them.
Does that mean Obama’s a bad guy too? Well, possibly- but the Republicans have to some degree forced his hand by making eroding civil liberties palatable, and the threat of additional terrorist plots unpalatable. The people have contributed by buying into this enhanced security nonsense.
Still, this discussion is academic. Airport security personnel were already profiling. I invite you to visit the SDMB picture gallery and try to guess whether I’ve ever gotten through an airport without being randomly chosen for enhanced screening.
It’s why you cannot protect civil liberties effectively through the majoritarian branch of government. Hence the need for a strong, vigilant, active judiciary, mindful of its responsibilities to protect the liberties enshrined in the constitution and unwilling to kowtow to political expediency and fear mongering.
Jesus Marimba! You gotta quit taking those ugly pills, you’re frightening the gargoyles!
The summary seems to be:
At the time that most of these policies were enacted, critics claimed that it was only due to the panic at the time that people were willing to let the government set these policies. But, as time has passed, the panic has faded away, and yet the policies remain - therefore their passage was not the result of panic.
That about right?
It’s not a very compelling argument. Laws don’t require constant need of support to stay in force - their default momentum is to be passed and remain in effect indefinitely. Government has a vested interest in increasing its own power, checked only by how much the public is willing to tolerate. But once they have that power, they won’t give it up without a tremendous fight. So it’s entirely accurate to say that the laws were passed on public support created by panic, and once they’ve taken on their own momentum, they’re staying in force even though the panic has subsided. There’s not a libertarian representation in the government, or any sort of people who actively seek to give the government less power, so who is going to propose the bills that would remove or limit these new powers? It’s naive to look at this as a Republican vs Democrat issue. Both are equally interested in increasing the power available to the government, and are unlikely to reduce those powers - only attempt to control them. So it isn’t surprising (even if it is dissapointing) that the Democrats aren’t substantially making changes in this regard.
That’s the danger of giving the government power, especially as a result from a temporary situation - once they have it, they’re never going to give it back. This article seems to think that the fact that the laws are still in effect after the panic has subsided means the critics are wrong and it is policy good enough to stand up on its own - but the real lesson is quite the opposite: that the critics were right and that allowing government to use a crisis as an excuse to expand its power is a permanent move and is not tied directly to that crisis.
The national character of the U.S. has really degraded in the last 10 years. It seems like our politicians think the worst mistake they can make is undermine our illusion of safety in any way.
I think Glenn Greenwald has done the best job of cataloging the inconsistencies, immaturity, and cynicism that’s running rampant in American political discourse today. Just look at the “War on Terror.” We’re afraid to treat these terrorists like the criminals they are (by ending indefinite detention and trying them in our civilian courts) because we’re supposedly at war, yet we act shocked when suicide bombers try to hurt us. We can’t believe that our enemy actually has the nerve to occasionally try to hit back. If we’re going to treat them as enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely (unless there’s a huge amount of evidence against them, in which case we’ll put them on trial so we can continue to sell the notion that we’re a society of laws), and if we’re going to keep bombing their homelands with drones, don’t we have to accept the occasional retaliation? Or do we honestly believe our government and military can pitch a shutout?
(1) Bush was also doing what the people wanted. The people were calling for enhanced security measures, and by golly they got them. What’s the difference between now and then?
(2) “Possibly”? If doing the exact same thing made Bush a bad guy, why doesn’t it make Obama “definitely” a bad guy?
(3) Ah, right, the evil Republicans again. Crafty bunch, they.
(4) Let me get this straight… the Republicans made the threat of additional terrorist plots unpalatable? In other words, the threat of additional terrorist plots was palatable (before the Republicans challenged that notion)? Is that really what you mean?
I have no idea what Really Not All That Bright actually meant, as I’m not psychic. But I take what he said as follows:
Prior to 9/11, the threat of a terrorist attack was present, and acknowledged to be present. However, it was accepted insofar as we did not bend over backwards in order to prevent every little niggling possibility from potentially coming to pass. After 9/11. . .well, one could argue that the resulting security measures only very, very slightly reduced the already very, very slight chance of a plane being attacked. In previous times, this slight reduction would not have been viewed as being worth the cost; in current times, it is judged as being worth the cost.
Same with civil liberties, monitoring, and what-not. The airlines are just the easiest example, because the effects are tangible to everyone who flies. Honestly, I think that Bush had little to do with this; I mean, we saw freaking buildings fall on television. That’s an iconic image.
Now, there was a large amount of paranoia and such attached to speeches following the events. . .but, crap, they’re politicians. You expected anything less?
That being said, Bricker makes a good point. I’m pretty damn liberal; I’d even wager that, judged by the standards of this board, I’d be considered leftie. A lot of the same things are still in place that were in place years ago. Some of the reactions are the same. I’m still gnashing my teeth.
This makes me think that the erosion of civil liberties might have had less to do with Republicans being evil and callous (which, of course, they aren’t; different ideas != evil), and more to do with the political reality of dealing with the masses–who are, at times, scared, dumb, and vocal. On both sides of the aisle, really.
This becomes really depressing. It’s one thing when you think that it’s just the other team being douches. It’s quite another when you realize that it isn’t just them–it’s your guys as well, you’re in the minority, and it’s you against the goddamn world. And while he used inflammatory language to express it, that sort of tone is necessary to drive home the point: it isn’t just a party thing.
The erosion of civil liberties isn’t something that’s fixed by switching out a letter. If we interpret it as being something so simple, then it’s really easy for us not to notice that things aren’t better. We can be fooled. And pointing out, “oh, well it started under Bush” doesn’t do a bloody thing to fix it.
Blame is for historians.
Angel of the Lord, thanks. I don’t necessarily agree with you 100%, but you do make some good points that I’ll mentally gnaw on for a while.
This is where civil libertarians have lost the debate. It isn’t that the cost of the “slight reduction” in chance of a terrorism attack isn’t worth the price in civil liberties. The real situation is, and we need to repeat this and convince people of this, that the reduction in civil liberties has made terrorist attacks more likely. By singling out certain groups, we have made those groups dislike us more.
It’s not a matter of trading liberties from security. People will always be willing to do that. What we need to convince people is that they are less safe if they give up liberty, or remove it from other people.
Not quite. The argument is that today, the policies remain and still enjoy broad support from the public. It’s thus not merely momentum.
Bricker: I almost hate to ask this of you since it might be a lot of work, but this is your thread, so here goes…
Can you make a list of the Bush policies that have been continued and under what conditions they have been continued (meaning that maybe they’re less/more intrusive on civil liberties than under Bush)? Are there no policies that Bush (and the Republican Congress) enacted that have been repealed or discarded by Obama?
Perhaps someone more in the Obama camp can tackle that 2nd question.
It just seems that we’re all talking about “policies” without being specific enough.
Well, not to dodge work, but let me turn it around. It seems almost beyond cavil that there is a broad agreement that the Bush years produced serious incursions into our personal liberties. So let’s start with that. Is that a true statement? What are those incursions, specifically?
If we start out with that list, we can certainly develop a comparison between then and now.
The problem is, that’s asking people to think long-term, not short-term. And the problem with taking on something like Gitmo in that fashion is that people can, with a modicum of surface respectability, can claim that it isn’t wrong that we captured them, detained them, tortured them, withheld trial, or whatever else is going on there. They can claim that we shouldn’t have let them go. That the problem is leniency.
And that argument is very A to B, as you can pretty categorically state that, were Joe Blow in Gitmo, he would not be, say, strapping dynamite to his chest in Times Square. As such, it has currency amongst the populace. Because of this, I think that civil libertarians have to at least sometimes couch their arguments in the terms of cost/benefit and right/wrong.
What you suggest is the best way, but it’s a tough sell to people who aren’t inclined to really analyze others’ motives. . .and, unfortunately, IME, that’s most people. Sucks, but there it is. Therefore, I’d agree with you that the argument should be included, but I also think the other arguments are necessary.
Just a couple of minor comments. It did seem to me that the Bush admin seemed to encourae a general “fear,” which enabled them to pursue at least some policies more easily.
When you speak of the “scared, dumb, and vocal masses,” it makes me question exactly what is the “American way of life” we are so adamant about protecting and exporting. I remember years ago making some (I thought) innocuous comment to fellow business travellers waiting in lines about the utility of the airport security. I was shocked that each of the couple of people I spoke with firmly believed that just about any inconvenience would be acceptable if they believed it avoided any danger. Taught me to keep my stupid mouth shut, and to not think that I viewed ANYTHING the way as my fellow species-mates.
Sure don’t seem to hear that line about giving up freedom for security these past few years…:rolleyes:
I disagree with this premise, and endorse SenorBeef’s comments.
Actually Obama is not doing anywhere near the same thing. His official stance is that he will not pursue stricter security at the expense of our freedoms.
I don’t disagree with you at all. My bottom line point is that the country will, for the foreseeable future, support a reduction in the civil liberties of others in exchange for a perceived minimal increase in security.
So to win them round, we have to do one of three things:
-
Convince the majority that the rights of the minority are worth defending even at the cost of greater risk for the majority - I think this is doomed to failure
-
Convince the majority that the rights are the rights of all of us, and that it is a reduction in liberty for all - I think this is doomed to failure, because, as said, the reductions in civil liberties don’t noticeably effect the majority
-
Convince the majority that there is no benefit in terms of increased security. Even if this could be done, I am not sure it is enough. I think there is a significant percentage of the population that is actively anti-civil liberties, and would support the removal of such liberties from certain groups regardless of the effects on security
Which leads us to Plan B, the only one that I think can work. Strengthen the judiciary, and rely on it to protect us from the populist branches.