# The Bush Administration Trashes Civil Liberties of Americans **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 16, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856 "2005-12-16T03:02:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/221 "2005-12-19T03:50:09Z")
> [@Updike](#): > > There is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Got a cite for that? I’ve been trolling Redstate, Powerline, LGF, Instapundit and the like today, trying to find a de-credibilizing argument, but have yet to see one. Where’ve you spotted one, or is this merely one of your core beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![Updike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@Updike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Updike)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/222 "2005-12-19T04:02:39Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Got a cite for that? I’ve been trolling Redstate, Powerline, LGF, Instapundit and the like today, trying to find a de-credibilizing argument, but have yet to see one. Where’ve you spotted one, or is this merely one of your core beliefs? Um, that’s not how it works. If you want to claim that the President is disobeying the laws, and not protecting our liberties, it’s up to you to provide the evidence for such a position. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/223 "2005-12-19T04:07:08Z")
> [@Updike](#): > > See, now, when you claim that the NYT is “rightgeous” about anything, you’ve lost the argument. Why? > [@](#): > > Aren’t they supposed to be reporting the news, “righteous” or not aside? What did they report that wasn’t true? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/224 "2005-12-19T05:10:29Z")
> [@Updike](#): > > Um, that’s not how it works… So you got nothing. That being the case, why not just shut the fuck up? Your throwing monkey poo around won’t make people’s concerns about government spying go away. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/225 "2005-12-19T07:40:02Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > Is there no room in your philosophy for an obvious gut check? As in the notion that just because a creepy neighbor has the ability to make off with my garbage and paw through it doesn’t mean that it still isn’t creepy. Not to mention, it’s also very likely that a concerned neighbor could break into your house while you are away and paw through your belongings. It’s not just a matter of what third parties CAN do, it’s also a matter of what they are reasonably likely to do. It may be reasonable to expect a creepy neighbor to search through your trash (maybe), but it’s less reasonable to expect the creepy neighbor to say, do a phone tap on your house. I think the actual likelyhood of say, Canadian intelligence forces spying on your phone calls are next to nill and are even less likely than a random third party breaking into your house. Thus, the “reasonableness” of a warantless phone tap is much less than the reasonableness of a warantless trash search. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/226 "2005-12-19T14:53:40Z")
> [@Updike](#): > > He is, and he has. There is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Well, shit, in the case Bush has nothing to worry about. Now let’s get that Patriot Act re-passed! -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/227 "2005-12-19T15:03:52Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > [Patriot II Draft Legislation, 9 January 2003](http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PA2draft.html) > > Section 103: Strengthening Wartime Authorities Under FISA. > > Under 50 U.S.C. §§ 1811, 1829 & 1844, the Attorney General may authorize, without the prior approval of the FISA Court, electronic surveillance, physical searches, or the use of pen registers **for a period of 15 days** following a **congressional declaration of war**. This wartime exception is unnecessarily narrow; it may be\*\* invoked only when Congress formally has declared war\*\*, a rare event in the nation’s history and something that has not occurred in more than sixty years. **This provision would expand FISA’s wartime exception by allowing the wartime exception** > > So when did Congress officially declare war? Never. Even under a condition of war, why is the President grossly exceeding the 15 day limit? > > I submit that, with all the other laws that have been cited, we have a “serious problem”. No matter what, the President has broken at least one law, and probably MANY. The analysis you offer comes from [www.ratical.org](http://www.ratical.org), a site whose “about us” says: > [@](#): > > rat haus reality, ratical branch is the electronic manifestation of rat haus reality press, dedicated to promulgating and promoting life-nurturing activities and awarenesses regarding this “home” we all share and are all responsible for, not simply for the seventh generation of humankind yet unborn, but for all life germinated and nourished by Gaia. You’ll forgive me if I dismiss their analysis as biased. In fact, as I’ve said before, the case is simple: §§ 1811 has a wartime exception, this is wartime, and the exception applies. The exception refers to fifteen days per wiretap case, not fifteen days in toto. There were no laws broken. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/228 "2005-12-19T15:06:36Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Not to mention, it’s also very likely that a concerned neighbor could break into your house while you are away and paw through your belongings. It’s not just a matter of what third parties CAN do, it’s also a matter of what they are reasonably likely to do. It may be reasonable to expect a creepy neighbor to search through your trash (maybe), but it’s less reasonable to expect the creepy neighbor to say, do a phone tap on your house. > > I think the actual likelyhood of say, Canadian intelligence forces spying on your phone calls are next to nill and are even less likely than a random third party breaking into your house. Thus, the “reasonableness” of a warantless phone tap is much less than the reasonableness of a warantless trash search. It’s a matter of what third parties can legally do. Creepy or not, you simply don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your garbage. It’s that simple. You may holler, “But I SHOULD!” Maybe you should. I have no way to evaluate that statement. Fact is, you DON’T. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/229 "2005-12-19T15:08:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s a matter of what third parties can legally do. Creepy or not, you simply don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your garbage. It’s that simple. You may holler, “But I SHOULD!” Maybe you should. I have no way to evaluate that statement. Fact is, you DON’T. Shoudl have added, with respect to phone taps: the creepy neighbor cannot legally tap your phone. Thus, on an ordinary, in-the-USA call, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. On an overseas call, the overseas gvoernment CAN legally monitor your call. Thus you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for that call. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/230 "2005-12-19T17:10:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In fact, as I’ve said before, the case is simple: §§ 1811 has a wartime exception, this is wartime, and the exception applies. Nope. Given the rubberstamp tradition at FISA court, the president’s choice to go around the normal rules has the same legitimacy as a presidential order permitting Scott McClellan to pull down his pants and moon lefty journalists. There’s no reasonable expectation that either act would benefit the fight against al Qaeda. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/231 "2005-12-19T17:22:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s a matter of what third parties can legally do. Creepy or not, you simply don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your garbage. It’s that simple. You may holler, “But I SHOULD!” Maybe you should. I have no way to evaluate that statement. Fact is, you DON’T. This statement, I think, gets to the heart of what I just don’t get about you. WHY do you have no way to evaluate that statement? If I assert that I should be able to contribute to society, pay my taxes and obey the law and in exchange I should not have my garbage pawed through, my email read, my telephone bugged or be pulled over when driving for no reason, why is it that you have no basis to evaluate those statements other than the Law? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/232 "2005-12-19T17:24:59Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > This statement, I think, gets to the heart of what I just don’t get about you. WHY do you have no way to evaluate that statement? If I assert that I should be able to contribute to society, pay my taxes and obey the law and in exchange I should not have my garbage pawed through, my email read, my telephone bugged or be pulled over when driving for no reason, why is it that you have no basis to evaluate those statements other than the Law? I have another way. My gut feeling says, you put trash out on the street to be thrown away. You have no business complaining about what anyone does with it. You want it private, don’t put it out on the street. But “my gut feeling” doesn’t seem like a good basis for an argument. See [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=350115) for an example of how poorly that fares. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/233 "2005-12-19T17:26:15Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Nope. Given the rubberstamp tradition at FISA court, the president’s choice to go around the normal rules has the same legitimacy as a presidential order permitting Scott McClellan to pull down his pants and moon lefty journalists. There’s no reasonable expectation that either act would benefit the fight against al Qaeda. So what? Since when is a “reasonable expectation that [an] act would benefit the fight against al Qaeda” the correct standard to use to judge whether the law has been broken? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/234 "2005-12-19T17:29:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what? Since when is a “reasonable expectation that [an] act would benefit the fight against al Qaeda” the correct standard to use to judge whether the law has been broken? Yes it is. If not, your argument permits the president to do anything at all once congress passes a conflict resolution. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/235 "2005-12-19T17:31:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have another way. > > My gut feeling says, you put trash out on the street to be thrown away. You have no business complaining about what anyone does with it. You want it private, don’t put it out on the street. > > But “my gut feeling” doesn’t seem like a good basis for an argument. See [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=350115) for an example of how poorly that fares. OK, let’s set the garbage aside for a moment. Assuming that whomever is pawing through my trash is being neat and not leaving a mess for me to clean up, let us for a moment assume that they are not stealing personal information ('cuz, I have no right to complain about identity theft right?) What about my other points? And by the way, is it just this sort of a “cite” that you had in mind when you posted that other thread? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/236 "2005-12-19T17:38:25Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Yes it is. If not, your argument permits the president to do anything at all once congress passes a conflict resolution. Well, that’s Congress’ fault, then. They should have passed a more specific version of §§ 1811 that limited the surveillance permitted in wartime to that related to the parties to the armed conflict. It’s a basic principle of criminal law that it is to be construed narrowly. If the law doesn’t explictly prohibit an action, then it’s not criminal. Can you trying to convict someone who, say, traded with Cuba, on a similar sort of inference? That person would point to the law and say: “Look: it says THIS, plainly. I didn’t violate it.” Right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/237 "2005-12-19T17:40:35Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > OK, let’s set the garbage aside for a moment. Assuming that whomever is pawing through my trash is being neat and not leaving a mess for me to clean up, let us for a moment assume that they are not stealing personal information ('cuz, I have no right to complain about identity theft right?) What about my other points? > > And by the way, is it just this sort of a “cite” that you had in mind when you posted that other thread? You have no right to scream if they steal your personal information. There’s no law against that. Now, USING your personal information to commit fraud, is of course, completely different, and completely illegal. And I’ve lost track. What other points? Just refer me to a post or repeat them – I’m sorry to ask, but it’s not like you’re the only one I’m dealing with here. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/238 "2005-12-19T18:29:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …And I’ve lost track. What other points? Just refer me to a post or repeat them – I’m sorry to ask, but it’s not like you’re the only one I’m dealing with here. Sure, not an issue at all. Here: > [@Me](#): > > This statement, I think, gets to the heart of what I just don’t get about you. **WHY do you have no way to evaluate that statement?** If I assert that I should be able to contribute to society, pay my taxes and obey the law and in exchange I should not have my garbage pawed through, my email read, my telephone bugged or be pulled over when driving for no reason, why is it that you have no basis to evaluate those statements other than the Law? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/239 "2005-12-19T18:32:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s a basic principle of criminal law that it is to be construed narrowly. If the law doesn’t explictly prohibit an action, then it’s not criminal… It’s a basic feature of language that it is imprecise. Laws are neither written for, nor interpreted by perfect logical machines. If they where, we could replace the courts and lawyers with a couple of computers and a stack of DVD’s. You’ve probably made the best possible argument for the legality of the president’s unawarranted tapping, at least I’ve not seen better, yet I remain unconvinced, _particularly_ in light of the carte blanche you give the executive. Regardless of the strength or weakness of your arguments, the legality of Mr Bush’s personal taps isn’t settled, and it’ll take action by congress and the courts to sort it out. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/240 "2005-12-19T18:34:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You have no right to scream if they steal your personal information. There’s no law against that… Also, while we are at it, what does this have to do with anything? The fact that there is no law explicitly stating that a random dude can’t steal my personal information means I am unreasonable to call him doing so wrong? That is so strange to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856.md?page=13)