Why The Civil Liberties Argument Falls On Deaf Ears

• October 9, 2006

…who does the average American fear more–the FBI or the IRS? The local zoning board, or the NSA? What does he fear more: the ten commandments on the wall of his child’s school, or having the new addition to the house disallowed by the zoning board, the EPA, or the Americans with Disabilities act? On what does he spend more time: preparing his taxes, earning the money to pay for them, and arguing with the various tax authorities about what he owes . . . or checking for roving wiretaps?
Let’s face it: one of the biggest problems civil libertarians are battling in the war against warrantless wiretaps, and so forth, is that 99% of the citizenry (correctly) believes that the government is not planning to use such measures against them. I’m on the side of the civil libertarians, mind you, but I recognize that this is why all the cries about America descending into a dark night of fascism, and Bush being the worst president ever on civil liberties (which even a light perusal of history reveals as silly), are falling on deaf ears.

This is exactly why the Republicans, for all their faults, must stay in office. For all the squawking about fascism from the civil liberties absolutists, the simple truth of the matter is that the actions taken by the NSA and our other intelligence agencies at the behest of the President have resulted in keeping America safe from terrorist attacks. It is an undeniable truth. The plot to blow up a dozen or so British airplanes that was thwarted earlier this summer, for instance, was thwarted because our government was engaging in the sort of activity these civil liberties hysterics abhor. Suspects were detained and aggressively interrogated. Connections were made by data mining phone records. Thousands of lives were saved because we didn’t listen to the hysterics. We did what needed to be done and kept people safe.
I think most Americans, considering that reality, just don’t find the “civil liberties” argument persuasive. What will find persuasive (or should) is the idea that if Democrats get in charge they’re going to roll back these anti-terror measures that are keeping us safe and raise our taxes to boot.
And don’t get me wrong. Any decision to grant the government more power over our lives should be made only after careful consideration, but these civil liberties absolutists are just plain getting it wrong. I’ve often said that conservatives are libertarians who are capable of common sense. I think that point is illustrated best in this issue. Libertarians and others would have us believe that we should cling to some false sense of privacy and eschew efforts to give up a little of that privacy for national security. That may sound like a lofty position, but the real choice is this: Either we give up a reasonable amount of privacy for the sake of national security or we face more 9/11′s.
That makes for a pretty clear choice for this conservative.

Tags: Domestic Issues, Politics, War On Terror

http://Array robert108

gregdn: At the pace automated microwave monitoring goes, 72 hours is an eternity. To create an entire layer of bureaucracy to deal with what is essentially a law enforcement approach to a wartime process would decrease our ability to process and surveil the enemy considerably, and that is exactly the purpose of the obstructionism being practiced by the NYT and the Dems/MSM. This is war, not a mugging. Even without the leaks(which have been very harmful and dangerous to national defense), the spy vs spy action that goes on in wartime makes any delays potentially fatal. This is about stopping the enemy, not civil rights.
jpe

The plot to blow up a dozen or so British airplanes…was thwarted because our government was engaging in the sort of activity these civil liberties hysterics abhor.

First, I don’t think this is correct. Second, if it were, it’s not enough to make your argument – you’d have to argue that but for the illegal program(s), the same information wouldn’t have been discovered.
robert108

jpe:

you’d have to argue that but for the illegal program(s), the same information wouldn’t have been discovered.

That is exactly what happened. What is the alternative to surveillance?
BTW, the “warrantless” meme is just a strawman argument by the left. They object to surveillance, period. The warrant process makes the surveillance less effective. That is the real purpose of the left: to make our anti-terrorism less effective.
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

jpe,

Then you have not been paying attention. NSA and other US intelligenge agencies broke the plot, which the British were following from a law enforcement approach. We forced the issue when we informed the UK Intelligence services that we would be grabbing one of the key players, and our listing of suspected accomplices matched their case.

Nor are the programs (as described) illegal. FIS Court Approval only pertains to cases where U. S. Persons are on one end AND where the Government intends to prosecute said U. S. Person under domestic law.

Out Here
Rodney Graves
rodney.g.graves@gmail.com
jpe

Robert, you’d have to argue that surveillance w/ warrants would not have been able to yield the same or similar results.
Dave

It falls on deaf ears because terrified people don’t want to be free, they want to be safe.

So if we can keep them terrified, our government can continue to acquire more and more power at the expense of the individual. And at that point “liberty” becomes meaningless.
joeb

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
robert108

jpe: Two facts: The relentless program of “Get the President” being played by the MSM, using the tactic of the leaking of classified info, and the nature of monitoring microwave transmissions(the true nature of the surveillance) by computers in the time of disposable cell phones. A computer cannot obtain a warrant without delaying the process by notifying a human being. To maintain maximum efficiency, the first time a human being is involved in the process is when the conversation(already in progress) is beamed to their headphones. If you have to delay that to initiate some warrent or even notification process, the intel will be lost.
gregdn

Robert:
” If you have to delay that to initiate some warrent or even notification process, the intel will be lost. ”

You know FISA gives you 72 hours after the fact to get a warrant. It does however require ‘probable cause’ which is what I think the Administration is really trying to avoid.
2Hotel9

Wow, joeb, nice little racist rant page you got going there. Does your mom know what you spend all you time on the computer doing?
WOOFX

Britain and the FBI obtained warrants

in the airplane plot.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Robert, you’d have to argue that surveillance w/ warrants would not have been able to yield the same or similar results.

Why? In a time of war the President has all the authority he needs to order monitoring of phone call data without a warrant.

You really should try knowing what you’re talking about, jpe.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

There has to be a balance. Civil liberty absolutism would be cold comfort if this nation (economically and socially) is in shambles because of terror attacks.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Why The Civil Liberties Argument Falls On Deaf Ears

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments