Letters to the Editor
-
OT: Misleading LA Times editorial on Reid, Dodd, FISA, etc.
Today’s LA Times contains a very misleading editorial, entitled “Reid retreats on eavesdropping bill: In starting, then stalling, debate, he could botch a deal that helps protect Americans”:
… legislation that would subject eavesdropping on Americans by the National Security Agency to meaningful judicial oversight. Reid retreated in the face of a talkathon by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who opposes a provision in one of two versions of the legislation that would grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications firms that cooperated with the NSA.
The editorial was uniformly misinformative and deserves a harsh response.
-
@RMP
A great clarification on the nature of the Japanese political system today. Thank you.
-
@Ondolette
I assume you guys both know that, just wanted it on the record.
-- ondelette
True. I'm still troubled by other people's use of the term "militarism". Not Glenn's usage, but I think we have some people here who believe that a "standing military" is the problem. We spend far more on defense than we should but it is difficult in my mind to reconcile the argument that we are militaristic when we also argue that none of us really sacrifice for this occupation but the troops. Nevermind the fact that we have an all volunteer military and not enough volunteers as it is. That's not "militarism" as I understand it.
Militarism -militarist ideology is the doctrinal view that society should be governed by the concepts embodied in military culture and its heritage. Militarists hold the view that discipline is the highest social priority, and claim that the development and maintenance of the military ensures national and social order. National policy is believed to be best served by focusing the society on preparation for military operations and conducting military operations. Militaristic movements in the past have developed from diverse areas: Conservative movements, radicals in the army, etc. Social repression follows the imposition of military order on civilian society. Its main political association has historically been with the far right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism
I have similar qualms with those who argue we are living in a police state. We'd be the first recorded in history contemplating the building a wall to keep people out instead of in.
-
Edit: Spend far more on Offense
Spend far more on Offense than we should. Actual defense is relatively cheap.
-
@anonymous
We'd be the first recorded in history contemplating the building a wall to keep people out instead of in.
There seem to be a few words missing in that sentence, so are you really trying to say that the walls of China, of Hadrian, and of countless cities and towns of medieval Europe were not for the express purpose of "keep[ing] people out?"
-
Odd Diversions
This squabbling over Ron Paul's beliefs is an odd diversion. At least the man is willing to honestly articulate what he thinks and openly debate the issues. He is one of the few candidates who is not pandering to the masses and has been consistent with his message. Ron Paul is despised by liberals and conservatives not because of his stand on the issues but because of his approach to government.
-
Paul, you are free to leave. It's not a police state... yet.
11:59 a.m. December 22, 2007
WASHINGTON – Former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had a plan to suspend the rules against illegal detention and arrest up to 12,000 Americans he suspected of being disloyal, according to a newly declassified document.
Hoover sent his plan to the White House on July 7, 1950, less than two weeks after the Korean War began. But there is no evidence to suggest that President Truman or any subsequent president approved any part of Hoover's proposal to house suspect Americans in military and federal prisons.
AdvertisementHoover had wanted Truman to declare the mass arrests necessary to “protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage,” The New York Times reported Saturday in a story posted on its Web site.
The plan called for the FBI to apprehend all potentially dangerous individuals whose names were on a list Hoover had been compiling for years.
“The index now contains approximately twelve thousand individuals, of which approximately ninety-seven percent are citizens of the United States,” Hoover wrote in the now-declassified document. “In order to make effective these apprehensions, the proclamation suspends the writ of habeas corpus.”
Habeas corpus is the right to seek relief from illegal detention, and is a bedrock legal principle.
All apprehended individuals eventually would have had the right to a hearing under Hoover's plan, but hearing boards comprised of one judge and two citizens would not have been bound by the rules of evidence.
The details of Hoover's plan was among a collection of Cold War-era documents related to intelligence issues from 1950-1955. The State Department declassified the documents on Friday.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20071222-1159-hoover-massarrests.html
-
re update2
Ezra writes: ...but if we allow constitutional rights to be cleaved from reproductive rights* -- if, in other words, we let admiration for Paul's courageous positions render us unwilling to hear criticism of his dangerous positions -- then we let him split the progressive coalition best able to argue for a broad restoration of rights**, and so we will end up with neither reproductive freedoms nor constitutional protections.
* Were not constitutional rights the basis for reproductive rights?
** So far, Dodd and Kucinich are the only two progressives I've heard discuss - or, argue in favor of - the restoration of the civil liberties we've lost. Just because the progressive coalition is in position to argue for their restoration, it does not automatically follow that they will restore them. [Having written that before I've fully explored Charlie Savage's piece in the Boston Globe]
Having school in session over the weekend is kind of a bitch. ;-)
-
Heh
Ron Paul is despised by liberals and conservatives not because of his stand on the issues but because of his approach to government.
-- John Brown
Ron Paul's approach to the federal government is to dismantlle it. Conservatives, and until quite recently the GOP, have been trying to do that for the last forty years. Nice try, John but you really do lack historical perspective. I find the hysterical perspective, hysterical, however.