The various reasons for the elite to connive at Bush's war-mongering, torture, illegal surveillance, etc., etc., are the various fears of the Democrats, the construction of a two-tiered justice system, etc.

I think there may be another explanation. Defense of the status quo. The world is changing rapidly, and whether in the new world the current elite will retain power in the same way is not clear. They are fighting a rear-guard action to preserve their power in the current mode.

I think this is a historical phenomenon. I see it in e.g., Kodak missing the digital photography revolution - not because they're dumb, but because of the entrenched interests. I saw it in some of the major telco carriers (almost) missing the boat on the Internet and such services as Voice over IP. I see it in the music industry's past resistance to internet distribution of music. Tremendous effort goes into protecting the current revenue stream instead of embracing the change wholeheartedly.

The defense of the status quo can lead to major disasters. In the above cases, companies - the employees and shareholders - go through near-death experiences. I see the Europeans clinging on to their (now seen to be unnecessary) colonial empires as the cause of world wars (and delayed political and economic development in the colonized peoples). {"Trotsky famously observed that “Chamberlain would give away all the democracies of the world ... for one-tenth of India".}

We are at the beginning of the end of the age of oil. Because of changes in the world economy and because of the unsustainable impact of the economy on the environment, we are compelled to begin really deep changes and we don't know where it will end.

Technology is changing where research is done, how intellectual property is created, how the news is delivered, what the peoples' meeting places are, etc. etc.

And at this time, instead of Silicon Valley style entrepreneurs who know that success comes from changing the game, we have two oilmen at the helm who are devoted to the existing but-rapidly-becoming obsolete order of things. What we have is an elite that is fearful of a loss in their position, and a disdain for the work and creativity needed to maintain it. During this period of denial, they will seek and support further consolidation of imperial power, not realizing how futile and destructive it is.

This is a sense that I have; I do not have the depth of knowledge to develop this thought or to really see how it stands up to reality.

if there is a network of malevolent terrorists but the only way we can find them is by sieving through the entire sea and the first time we come across them is as a corpse in an airplane, what else is there to do? that's the problem. since there hasn't been another attack we can be academic in judging this.

Oklahoma City Bombing. That was truly an attack from within. If that's not enough to cause us to yield our privacy then why is 9/11 all different?

Secondly, talk to Muslims. You will find that they more or less agree the radical version of Islam that makes some Muslims reject secular values, become intolerant of other religions, regress to the seventh century AD and become susceptible to become suicide bombers emanates from where - from the official ideology of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This is a fact that Americans are loathe to deal with because f'ing Saudi Arabia is their great "ally". If there is a choice of liberties - it is between shutting down Saudi Arabia's sponsorship of its version of Islam and your's and every one else's rights to privacy.

mean, there was no Al Qaeda in 1776. No WMDs, Yellowcake, Guatanamo, evil doers, global warming fascists, islamadamafascistic fascism, liberal fascists, Axis of Evil, DFHs, Al Gore, Freedom Fries, Left Wing Loonies, Qwest, Hollywood elites, etc., etc., etc.

Yeah, all there was was the British, ready to hang (or did they draw and quarter?) the rebels. A far more real threat (not that any of the above in your quote is a real threat).

Here's an example - you may have seen a recent Inspector-General's report about the FBI.

FBI personnel on observing CIA interrogation methods actually opened a war crimes file, and the matter went up their management chain. But the DOJ lawyers told the FBI that all that was legal. So the FBI kept quiet, but instructed all their agents **not to participate** in any such interrogation. Also the FBI knows these methods not to be effective.

The one question on the WNYC show Brian Lehrer didn't ask (or didn't get a good response to) in his interview of a FBI bigwig about this report was - what is the threshold above which the FBI would blow the whistle publicly.

--- The point is that even a **government agency** is not bound by DOJ's claim of legality.

That is what the courts exist for. When the telcos had an illegal order, they should have refused to comply and their answer to the government is "So sue us".

The US co-chairman of the US-Canada Boundary Commission thought that the President had given him an illegal order and went to court.

Deep Harm's diary on dailykos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/6/154528/8988/841/545298

(or click on signature)

"Have you visited a bar, played billiards, visited a massage parlor or sought marriage counseling? Then, there's a good chance you have been economically punished for those activities through lowering of your credit limits and scores. That could cost you a home loan or a job, or perhaps a government security clearance. If you reported illegal activities by a former employer, you could be blacklisted for life thanks to databases maintained by firms that conduct background checks on workers for both government and businesses."