Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Ballistics, Civil Rights, Constitution, Guns, RKBA
Cross posted from the BBTI blog.
More “it’s all about ME ME ME !!!” . . .
Had a nice interview with Doc Wesson on the Gun Nation Podcast, runs about 45 minutes in the first section of a great two-part show. We talk about a lot of different aspects of the Ballistics By The Inch project, and related topics. The whole show is definitely worth listening to, but the bit with me starts at about the 15:00 mark in part one, if you want to skip over that bit.
No, seriously, if you get a chance, put The Gun Nation into your queue of good things to listen to. In the interview I give some hints about future tests we want to conduct, and Doc manages to tease out of me some of my own conclusions about carry ammo I haven’t previously discussed.
Jim Downey
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Civil Rights, Constitution, Emergency, Government, Guns, Politics, Predictions, Preparedness, Terrorism, Violence
Following up to the March revelation that the Bush Administration had concluded that it had the legal authority to effectively suspend civil liberties, comes a piece in the New York Times about how they almost used that authority in 2002:
Bush Weighed Using Military in Arrests
WASHINGTON — Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to arrest a group of men suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda, according to former administration officials.Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that a president had the power to use the military on domestic soil to sweep up the terrorism suspects, who came to be known as the Lackawanna Six, and declare them enemy combatants.
OK, so in March we found out that the Bush Administration had constructed a legal theory that would allow it to suspend at least some of the Bill of Rights. From the initial Harper’s article:
Yesterday the Obama Administration released a series of nine previously secret legal opinions crafted by the Office of Legal Counsel to enhance the presidential powers of George W. Bush. Perhaps the most astonishing of these memos was one crafted by University of California at Berkeley law professor John Yoo. He concluded that in wartime, the President was freed from the constraints of the Bill of Rights with respect to anything he chose to label as a counterterrorism operations inside the United States.
And, curiously, the author of that article did wonder about how it may have been considered being used by the Administration:
We need to know how the memo was used. Bradbury suggests it was not much relied upon; I don’t believe that for a second. Moreover Bradbury’s decision to wait to the very end before repealing it suggests that someone in the Bush hierarchy was keen on having it.
It’s pretty clear that it served several purposes. Clearly it was designed to authorize sweeping warrantless surveillance by military agencies such as the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. Using special new surveillance programs that required the collaboration of telecommunications and Internet service providers, these agencies were sweeping through the emails, IMs, faxes, and phone calls of tens of millions of Americans. Clearly such unlawful surveillance occurred. But the language of the memos suggest that much more was afoot, including the deployment of military units and military police powers on American soil. These memos suggest that John Yoo found a way to treat the Posse Comitatus Act as suspended.
Today’s NYT report is the first which reveals that high-level Bush officials actively considered and even advocated that the power to use the military to arrest American citizens on U.S. soil be used. In this instance, Cheney and Addington argued that the U.S. Army should be deployed to Buffalo to arrest six American citizens — dubbed the “Lackawanna Six” — suspected of being Al Qaeda members (though not suspected of being anywhere near executing an actual Terrorist attack). The Cheney/Addington plan was opposed by DOJ officials who wanted domestic law enforcement jurisdiction for themselves, and the plan was ultimately rejected by Bush, who instead dispatched the FBI to arrest them [all six were ultimately charged in federal court with crimes (“material support for terrorism”); all pled guilty and were sentenced to long prison terms, and they then cooperated in other cases, once again illustrating how effective our normal criminal justice and federal prison systems are in incapacitating Terrorists].
Greenwald goes on to argue that it is critical for the Obama Administration to renounce the legal decisions behind the Bush Administration policies:
Those are the stakes when it comes to debates over Obama’s detention, surveillance and secrecy policies. To endorse the idea that Terrorism justifies extreme presidential powers in these areas is to ensure that we permanently embrace a radical departure from our core principles of justice. It should come as no surprise that once John Yoo did what he was meant to do — give his legal approval to a truly limitless presidency, one literally unconstrained even by the Bill of Rights, even as applied to American citizens on U.S. soil — then Dick Cheney and David Addington sought to use those powers (in the Buffalo case) and Bush did use them (in the case of Jose Padilla). That’s how extreme powers work: once implemented, they will be used, and used far beyond their original intent — whether by the well-intentioned implementing President or a subsequent one with less benign motives. That’s why it’s so vital that such policies be opposed before they take root.
Just consider for a moment how the Obama Administration (or some subsequent administration) might construe this same authority to “suspend” other components of the Bill of Rights. To shut down some particularly troublesome “fringe” religious group. To impose “limited” censorship on internet traffic. To “stop the terrorism of handgun violence”.
This is the legacy of the Bush Administration, and why so many of us were so very nervous about the precedents being set by it. Because history is long, and freedom is easily lost.
Jim Downey
(Via BalloonJuice. Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Babylon 5, Civil Rights, Constitution, Government, Guns, Privacy, Travel
I try and keep an open mind about things, avoiding falling into the trap of allowing others to define my reality as much as possible. Because sometimes if you define things for yourself you can turn what is ostensibly a limitation into an advantage.
And so it is that I find the following approach towards air travel to be . . . ingenious.
Only the first fifteen minutes or so are necessary to understand his approach, and for those who want just the gist of the matter here’s a summation from his website:
– Abstract –
Many of us attend cons and other events which involve the transportation of computers, photography equipment, or other expensive tech in our bags. If our destination if far-flung, often air travel is involved… this almost always means being separated from our luggage for extended periods of time and entrusting its care to a litany of individuals with questionable ethics and training.
After a particularly horrible episode of baggage pilferage and tool theft, I made the decision to never again fly with an unlocked bag. However, all “TSA compliant” locks tend to be rather awful and provide little to no real security. It was for this reason that I now choose to fly with firearms at all times. Federal law allows me (in fact, it REQUIRES me) to lock my luggage with proper padlocks and does not permit any airport staffer to open my bags once they have left my possession.
In this talk, I will summarize the relevant laws and policies concerning travel with firearms. It’s easier than you think, often adds little to no extra time to your schedule (indeed, it can EXPEDITE the check-in process sometimes), and is in my opinion the best way to prevent tampering and theft of bags during air travel.
Basically, it comes down to using a secure hard-sided case for all your valuable items, and including a firearm in that case. This requires a non-TSA-compliant lock, knowledge of the relevant laws (available on his website or from the TSA), and filling out the necessary paperwork when you check in for transporting a firearm (it doesn’t have to be a valuable firearm or even an actually functional one). Some additional hassle up front, but your possessions will be a lot more secure.
I’ve bitched before about the loss of privacy thanks to the TSA, and the loss of security that goes along with that. Using this tactic would at least address one aspect of the whole thing, and might be worth it in some situations. Hmm . . . I need to be making a flight back east this summer, maybe I’ll give this a try and see how it actually works out . . .
Jim Downey
*General Smits, Babylon 5 episode Point of No Return, which seemed very appropriate. Via THR. Cross posted to UTI.
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Ballistics, Civil Rights, Constitution, Government, Guns, Predictions, RKBA, Society, Violence
For reasons I’ll discuss sometime later, I was digging around in some of my old archive writings this afternoon. And I came across an essay which was intended to be a companion piece to an op-ed I had written for the St. Louis Post Dispatch about 16 years ago (they declined to run it). It’s curious to see how little my opinions have changed in the interim, but also how what I had to say then was somewhat predictive to how things have actually played out, here and elsewhere around the nation. For this reason, I thought I would share it here.
Jim Downey
Cross posted to the BBTI blog.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Concealed-Carry
Recently, I had a column here concerning the radical NRA leadership, and the danger that their attitude of ‘anything goes’ with weapons and ammunition poses to police, federal agents, and the average American. So it may come as a bit of a surprise that I favor legislative efforts to allow most people to carry a concealed firearm.
I do not see a contradiction here. What the NRA leadership is doing to demonize and discredit law enforcement makes us all less safe. Having more law-abiding citizens trained in the safe handling of firearms, and duly licensed to carry those firearm for self defense, would make us more safe. Sure, the ideal solution would be to rid society of all firearms, or at least all handguns. But that isn’t likely to happen anytime soon, with a huge number of firearms already in private hands. Certainly, the criminals aren’t going to give up their weapons. And a crime-fearing public doesn’t want to relinquish their guns, though they rarely carry them in violation of current law.
A concealed-carry law would change the calculus of crime in a very fundamental way.
The calculus of crime is pretty straight-forward: people will turn to crime when they feel that the chances of reward are greater than the risks. Of course, how risk is estimated depends on what one has to lose. If a person has few options other than crime (either in reality or in perception), the threshold of acceptable risk is lower, and the incentive to turn to crime is greater.
There are a number of ways of affecting this equation. A strong moral incentive to not commit crime raises the level of risk. If you believe that you face a final judgement before an omniscient deity, you know that you cannot escape the consequences of committing a crime. Or if violating what you believe to be ‘right’ makes you uncomfortable, the rewards are diminished, and you are less inclined to resort to crime.
A greater probability of being caught and convicted by the criminal justice system likewise raises the threshold of risk. More police, wider law enforcement powers, and mandatory sentences are all efforts in this direction.
A high standard of living raises the threshold of risk (since the potential criminal has more to lose). Attempts to reduce poverty, provide job training, and give people opportunity and hope are based on this part of the equation.
Reducing the incentive also makes sense. This is one of the major premises behind arguments to legalize (and control and tax) some drugs. Legalization would greatly reduce the profit potential for dealers, and keep prices down for addicts, so that they wouldn’t have to turn to crime to support their habit.
These are all general, society-wide efforts. Businesses also tend to employ the same principles. Tighter inventory and accounting control reduce the threat of loss through employee theft and embezzelment, alarms and similar security systems are aimed at stopping burglary, and keeping a limited amount of cash on premises reduces the potential reward to a criminal.
Likewise, individuals apply the same understanding, whether we do so consciously or not. We are more nervous when we are carrying a large sum of cash, because we know that this increases the potential reward to a robber. We avoid dark alleys because this lowers the threshold of risk for the criminal, since there is less chance of that criminal being caught and convicted by the criminal justice system.
If concealed-carry laws were in effect, and a significant number of people availed themselves of such permits, this would also change the equation at both the individual and societal level. The threshold of risk to the criminal would rise. Instead of being relatively assured that a law-abiding (and hence unarmed) victim would be unable to respond to a threat of violence, the criminal would have to consider what the chances were that a likely victim would not only be armed, but trained in the proper use of a firearm.
Training would be the key. The military (and a number of states which already allow citizens to carry concealed firearms) have training regimens designed to teach people how to safely use and care for their weapons, when it is appropriate to use them, and what the ramifications of use are. Completing and passing such a training regimen, including periodic qualification on a shooting range, would be necessary to obtain a permit to carry.
And the weapon to be used would need to be licensed. A sample of that weapon’s unique ballistic profile could be put on file for future reference. Carrying a weapon not so licensed should be grounds for immediate revocation of the permit to carry. And there should be draconian punishments for carrying a weapon without the proper permit and training. Police should have broadened rights to search for a concealed weapon using hand-held metal detectors or other new scanning equipment.
What about crimes of passion? Wouldn’t adding more firearms, having them even more handy, increase the number of this variety of murders?
I don’t think so. There are already more than 100 million firearms in this country. Allowing people to carry a small fraction of that number would not increase the risk much. In fact, because of the requirement of training in the safe handling and proper use of concealed weapons, this risk might very well drop.
The experience in those states which have had concealed-carry laws on the books for a few years indicates that there are very few instances of improper use by citizens who hold such permits. And while it is difficult to establish the causal connection directly, the data also suggests that those states have experienced a drop in crime rates greater than the drop in the national average.
Lastly, allowing citizens who have a background clean of criminal activity and mental health problems to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon would do more than just change the calculus of crime. It would shift responsibility. The police really cannot protect us from predators. Often, the most they can do is be there after the fact, to help pick up the pieces of a shattered society, and to try and locate the perpetrators of a crime. A citizen who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon is empowered, with at least some greater control over his or her own fate in the face of crime. This is why many women have sought and obtained permits to carry in those states where such permits are legal.
A concealed-carry law would not be a panacea, any more than any of the other efforts to affect the calculus of crime have been a panacea. But a concealed-carry law could make a significant difference, and it is high time that we give our citizens the tools and training to protect themselves.
Filed under: Civil Rights, Constitution, Failure, Government, Privacy, Reason, Society, Terrorism, Violence
A friend sent me this Wall Street Journal article yesterday:
White House Czar Calls for End to ‘War on Drugs’
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting “a war on drugs,” a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.
In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation’s drug issues.
“Regardless of how you try to explain to people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or a ‘war on a product,’ people see a war as a war on them,” he said. “We’re not at war with people in this country.”
OK, that’s not the same thing as actually changing drug policy, but how you say something matters a lot. As Radly Balko says:
The drug war imagery started by Nixon, subdued by Carter, then ratcheted up again in the Reagan administration (and remaining basically level since) has had significant repercussions on the way drug policy is enforced, from policymakers on down to street-level cops. It’s war rhetoric that gave us the Pentagon giveaway program, where millions of pieces of surplus military equipment (such as tanks) have been transferred to local police departments. War imagery set the stage for the approximately 1,200 percent rise in the use of SWAT teams since the early 1980s, and has fostered the militaristic, “us vs. them” mentality too prevalent in too many police departments today.
War implies a threat so existential, so dire to our way of life, that we citizens should be ready to sign over some of our basic rights, be expected to make significant sacrifices, and endure collateral damage in order to defeat it. Preventing people from getting high has never represented that sort of threat.
The “War on (Some) Drugs” was never really about controlling drug abuse. It was about controlling people, particularly those people who could be easily demonized to give politicians a nice boost amongst their white, middle-class base. It helped to cement the allegiance of local pols and police departments, who got lots of new toys to play with at no cost (local cost, that is), and gave them more power. It eroded our civil rights and constitutional freedoms, and helped to set the stage for further intrusions when the “War on Terror” came along.
Getting rid of the “War” rhetoric doesn’t solve the problems with abuse of authority, but it does help to redefine the relationship a bit. It is a necessary first step in reclaiming some of our freedoms. Let’s hope that it is the first of many.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: Civil Rights, Constitution, Government, NYT, Privacy, Society, tech
N.S.A.’s Intercepts Exceed Limits Set by Congress
WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.
Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.
The legal and operational problems surrounding the N.S.A.’s surveillance activities have come under scrutiny from the Obama administration, Congressional intelligence committees and a secret national security court, said the intelligence officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because N.S.A. activities are classified. Classified government briefings have been held in recent weeks in response to a brewing controversy that some officials worry could damage the credibility of legitimate intelligence-gathering efforts.
Hey, it’s no big deal. Just a small bout of ‘overcollection’. Like having a few too many Tupperware containers, right? Or like being a bit ‘overdrawn’ at the bank. You know, to the tune of $1.3 Trillion or something. Easy mistake for anyone to make.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Civil Rights, Constitution, Government, Guns, Religion, Society, Violence
(I posted this over on dKos, thought it might be of interest to people here.)
* * *
xxdr zombiexx’s diary on Thursday provoked a lot of good discussion, and brought out in high relief some of the differences here on the left regarding attitudes towards guns. One very insightful thing he said in the 3rd update to his diary particularly got me to thinking:
The point is that I do think that some people take this “right to own guns” bit too seriously and have elevated it to a religion.
OK, let’s use that as the launching point for an analogy. It is not a perfect analogy, but I hope it is an illustrative one – please keep an open mind, and give it a chance to work. My intent here is to explain, not argue.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I want to focus on the first two parts of that, concerning religion, which are commonly referred to as the “Establishment” and “Free Exercise” clauses.
(I am not an attorney, and am not trying to argue legal history – I just want to provide a basic premise for the analogy.)
We tend to think that these clauses mean that an individual American has the right to believe (or not believe) as he or she sees fit, and to exercise their belief freely, without the interference of the government. And by & large, this is true. There are disputes concerning what constitutes any kind of government recognition or support of one religion or another (things like having the Ten Commandments posted in courthouses, et cetera), and there are problems which occur with how some people exercise their religion (as in considering otherwise illegal drugs to be a sacrament). But for the most part, you can believe as you see fit, and exercise that belief within the normal constraints of the law. This is how the vast majority of Americans live their lives.
[Here comes the speculative part. Bear with me.]
OK, now consider how most people would view the Democratic party if it had a history of supporting limitations on the exercise of religion. Let’s say that during the 1960s, following the death of President Kennedy, there was an effort made to promote Catholicism, in respect for the religion of the slain president. After all, a substantial number of Americans at the time were Catholics, including a large percentage of the working-class base of the Democratic Party in the big cities of the North East. Oh, you could still believe as you saw fit, still be Baptist, or Jewish, or Mormon – but let’s say that there was legislation proposed that would make the Pope the nominal head of all religions in the US, just as a sign of respect to President Kennedy.
Of course, such legislation would be seen as completely inappropriate, there would be a backlash, and Democrats would pay a heavy price in following elections. After wandering in the political wilderness for a generation, most Democrats would know not to get involved in such a mess, to leave religion well enough alone.
Time passes. But then along comes a new religion. A bit of a weird one. Scientology. A lot of people see it as a cult. Its power and influence is seen to grow, though in fairly limited ways. Still, it makes a lot of people uneasy. Several European countries decide that it is something of a threat, and pass laws against it, some harsher than others.
A new Democratic president decides to do something, and is instrumental in passing a new law in an effort to protect people from perceived dangers of Scientology. But the wording is sloppy (as any such effort to limit a religion while trying to stay Constitutional would be), and as more people become aware of the implications of the law, the more different religions seem to be threatened by it. Over the course of a decade, even though the Democratic president and his Republican successor don’t really use the law to do anything against most people, the general consensus comes about among believers that this law should be allowed to lapse when it comes up for renewal.
And still, even so, there are those Democrats who think that Scientology is a real threat, and they lobby hard to keep the law. Their intention is completely honorable – all they want to do is have what they see as reasonable limits on this one particular ‘weird’ religion. But their actions remind people of the ill-fated (though again, well-intentioned) efforts to promote Catholicism, no matter how much they profess that *that* is not what they mean to do at all. Fed by the Republican noise machine, fear of Democratic interference in the free exercise of religion is kept alive, even while the anti-Scientology law is allowed to expire.
A new Democratic president comes on the stage. He seems to be honest, and forthright, and has a lot of messes to clean up from his inept Republican predecessor. He says that he has no interest in limiting anyone’s religion, that he is a non-Catholic himself, and most people believe him. But he did slip up once during the campaign, and made an unfortunate comment about small-town Americans bitterly clinging to religion. That made a lot of people nervous, even good Democrats who were people of faith. And he had been on record previously in supporting the anti-Scientology legislation. And someone remembers that he was raised an atheist. A couple of his top cabinet members make comments which can be understood to be hostile to Scientology, perhaps to religion in general. Oh, and his official government website says that he still supports making the anti-Scientology law permanent.
Then, still very early in his administration, there are several high-profile instances where Scientology is in the news and seems to be as much of a threat as ever, if not moreso. Demands on left-leaning political blogs increase for a renewal of the anti-Scientology law, as poorly written and ineffectual as it was. Some vocal atheists weigh in, say that the problem goes well beyond just Scientology, that it is religion itself that is the problem, and that we should all just grow the hell up and get past this infantile fascination, be more like the Europeans. People of faith – not just Scientologists, but all those who remember what has happened in the past – start to eye the Democrats with increasing unease and suspicion.
Jim Downey
Filed under: Civil Rights, Constitution, Daily Kos, Emergency, General Musings, Government, Politics, Predictions, Preparedness, Society, Terrorism, Violence, YouTube
This is what I was afraid would happen.
And it makes me, well, worried. Very worried.
Prompted by 9/11, we watched the fairly rapid curtailment of civil liberties during the Bush administration (though supported & enabled entirely too much by Democrats in Congress). The Patriot Act. The expansion of FISA. Warrantless wiretapping by the NSA. Legal opinions which effectively gave the president dictatorial powers, and which allowed for torture of terrorism suspects.
Coupled with this was a dramatic rise in rhetoric on the right, to the effect that failure to get in line -completely- with the Bush administration’s “War on Terror” was called nothing short of treason. Anyone who objected to the “temporary curtailment of civil liberties” was likely to be painted as a traitor, or worse. It was not a good time to be a civil libertarian, or a liberal, and for eight long years many felt that we were under seige. I half expected more violence or even some excuse to suspend normal civil law and elections. And I was hardly alone.
But the elections were held, and changes were made. A new president, with a very different concept of the rule of law, was elected and has taken office. Granted, it was during the worst economic crisis we’ve faced in 70 years, but a lot of us had hope for the future. Hope that we could indeed start to work together as a nation.
Of course, the losers didn’t see it that way. Oh, some did, and there has actually been a substantial increase in the popularity and public support of Obama since the election and since he took office. But the core of the right has just gotten wound tighter and tighter, to the point where the rhetoric has taken on violent overtones. It started back during the election, with Gov. Palin’s characterization of Sen. Obama as “hanging around with terrorists” and the sentiments that engendered among her audience. Since then, it has only gotten worse.
Former UN Ambassador Alan Keyes (who has run for a variety of offices under the GOP banner) via YouTube:
“Obama is a radical communist, and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it’s true. He is going to destroy this country, and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”
And
“I’m not sure he’s even president of the United States, neither are many of our military people now who are now going to court to ask the question, ‘Do we have to obey a man who is not qualified under the constitution?’ We are in the midst of the greatest crisis this nation has ever seen, and if we don’t stop laughing about it and deal with it, we’re going to find ourselves in the midst of chaos, confusion and civil war.”
The ‘civil war’ theme has been picked and run with elsewhere on the right. There were the Glenn Beck “War Games” scenarios recently, which played out the idea of widespread civil unrest leading to civil war. You’ve got Chuck Norris writing an insane column for a major right-wing website promoting the idea of secession. Here’s a bit of that:
For those losing hope, and others wanting to rekindle the patriotic fires of early America, I encourage you to join Fox News’ Glenn Beck, me and millions of people across the country in the live telecast, “We Surround Them,” on Friday afternoon (March 13 at 5 p.m. ET, 4 p.m. CT and 2 p.m. PST). Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation. You can host or attend a viewing party by going to Glenn’s website. My wife Gena and I will be hosting one from our Texas ranch, in which we’ve invited many family members, friends and law enforcement to join us. It’s our way of saying “We’re united, we’re tired of the corruption, and we’re not going to take it anymore!”
Again, Sam Houston put it well when he gave the marching orders, “We view ourselves on the eve of battle. We are nerved for the contest, and must conquer or perish. It is vain to look for present aid: None is at hand. We must now act or abandon all hope! Rally to the standard, and be no longer the scoff of mercenary tongues! Be men, be free men, that your children may bless their father’s name.”
“Cell groups”? Really?
Sheesh.
But that isn’t what worries me. Well, it does, but I’ve got bigger fish to fry here. What really worries me is that this kind of rhetoric has prompted a backlash on the left that was entirely too predictable: a desire to use the powers of government already put into play by the Bush administration to quash this perceived threat. Not everyone agrees, but just look at comments in any of these different discussions and you’ll see what I mean. There are a lot of people who are fed up with the nonsense from the right, who say “shit, man, we put up with Bush for 8 years and you’re whining after only 8 weeks of Obama??? Fine, let’s take care of this now, using the tools you gave us.”
It’s a completely understandable reaction. But it is also extremely dangerous. It is, in fact, a poisoned well, and we drink from it at grave risk to ourselves and our Republic.
Because if we use those tools – if we employ the power of the government to suppress the freedoms of our enemies – then we legitimize all that the Bush administration did. And if that happens, I’m not sure there is any turning back. And down that path lies madness: violence, martial law, suspension of the Constitution, the whole crazy nightmare. Maybe not immediately, but eventually.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Civil Rights, Constitution, Emergency, Government, Politics, Terrorism
Offered, without need for additional comment:
George W. Bush’s Disposable Constitution
Yesterday the Obama Administration released a series of nine previously secret legal opinions crafted by the Office of Legal Counsel to enhance the presidential powers of George W. Bush. Perhaps the most astonishing of these memos was one crafted by University of California at Berkeley law professor John Yoo. He concluded that in wartime, the President was freed from the constraints of the Bill of Rights with respect to anything he chose to label as a counterterrorism operations inside the United States.
Here’s Neil Lewis’s summary in the New York Times:
“The law has recognized that force (including deadly force) may be legitimately used in self-defense,” Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty wrote to Mr. Gonzales. Therefore any objections based on the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches are swept away, they said, since any possible privacy offense resulting from such a search is a lesser matter than any injury from deadly force. The Oct. 23 memorandum also said that “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.” It added that “the current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.”
John Yoo’s Constitution is unlike any other I have ever seen. It seems to consist of one clause: appointing the President as commander-in-chief. The rest of the Constitution was apparently printed in disappearing ink.
More from the NYT piece:
WASHINGTON — The secret legal opinions issued by Bush administration lawyers after the Sept. 11 attacks included assertions that the president could use the nation’s military within the United States to combat terrorism suspects and to conduct raids without obtaining search warrants.
* * *
The opinions reflected a broad interpretation of presidential authority, asserting as well that the president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants.
And from Newsweek:
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Department secretly gave the green light for the U.S. military to attack apartment buildings and office complexes inside the United States, deploy high-tech surveillance against U.S. citizens and potentially suspend First Amendment freedom-of-the-press rights in order to combat the terror threat, according to a memo released Monday.
* * *
In perhaps the most surprising assertion, the Oct. 23, 2001, memo suggested the president could even suspend press freedoms if he concluded it was necessary to wage the war on terror. “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully,” Yoo wrote in the memo entitled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activity Within the United States.”
Draw your own conclusions.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
I’m a coffee junkie. I need to have my two cups of caff in the morning, or I am not fit to be around.
But the folks who came up with this are seriously twisted:
How To Free-Base Caffeine.
This footage was prepared recently by a citizen-journalist / advocate in Vancouver.
Contrary to what one might think, it’s a pretty good PSA for crack addicts wanting to manage their addiction … and it’s apparently legal, too.
Legal, yeah. But my guess is that these days, just having the equipment to do this would be considered to be “proof” of intent to traffic in cocaine, if you were actually doing it. Yeah, sure, it’s nothing that most households don’t already have around: coffee, a filter, a pan, some ammonia. What’s your point?
Jim Downey
(Via Sully.)
Communion Of Dreams 