At what point will conservatives admit Bush has gone too far?

Bush was not as forthcoming in his wiretap admission the other day as he should have been.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Espionage_and_Intelligence/

So just out of curiousity, at what point will conservatives be upset with this whole thing? I will admit, I am a moderate that leans to the left, so my tipping point was long ago. To me, it is clear Bush is willing to trample on whatever civil liberties it takes to prevent another 9/11. Now some of you may be in favor of that. He and other conservatives seem to think that longevity is the single most important thing in life. If that were true, I could move to any number of countries with more freedom and a higher life expectancy, though I would likely pay higher taxes. America is great because of the Constitution. I, for one, would rather assume a slightly larger risk of a terrorist attack than have civil liberties trampelled on repeatedly. If people keep justifying anything Bush does in the name of preventing terrorism, where does it stop? If he declares martial law is that OK? That would likely reduce the likelihood of another attack. Help me understand why there is not the outrage on this issue I think there should be.

[JackWhite]

Many already have on several different issues. On this one, George Will was extremely critical in his last column.

[BluffTHIS!]

Why not much outrage?

1) As Riddick pointed out in another thread, the Bush bashing complaints of this becoming a facist state are grossly exaggerated. While we do have more governmental intrusion as a result of 9/11, the appropriate benchmark of our rights is now compared to pre-9/11, not now compared to anarchy. And I as pointed out in another thread, we in the US have much less governmental intrusion and secrecy than Britain has had for decades under the Official Secrets Act, and they aren't goosestepping yet.

2) In judging how much governmental intrusion and surveillance is justified, what is important is not the increased probability that any one of us indivudually might be harmed, but that the US might suffer even 1 more such large attack. A risk of an attack that might still be fairly small without the Patriot Act, still entails a very large consequence if it does occur, and thus demands more be done to prevent it.

3) Also as I said in another thread, these are temporary measures and there is absolutely no justification other than fear-mongering and Bush-bashing, to argue "slippery slope". We have very effective legislative, judicial and constitutional remedies if the government should be perceived by a majority to have gone too far.

4) All civilian citizens are also soldiers for our country in the war on terror. We have to give up some things, both in order to prevent further attacks on our homeland, and in order that our troops and intelligence agents in the field might have the best available intelligence. And they need our moral support and unity as well. The long term view being able to tell the forest from the trees is what is needed. We shouldn't just be fair weather soldiers. If we refuse to make the required sacrifices at home, we are equivalent to someone who endangers the lives of his neighbors by refusing to maintain a blackout during an air raid, selfishly insisting that it is too much an intrusion on his rights not to be able to keep his lights on, when only a relatively painless and temporary sacrifice is asked.

5) There is also a political element to this as well of course. Since the democrats and libs have such an anti-Bush agenda that they are willing to distort and exaggerate, i.e. to make mountains out of molehills, they are just preceived by the public as the boy who cried wolf one too many times. Which is a shame since a legitimate complaint could fall on deaf public ears as a result.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush was not as forthcoming in his wiretap admission the other day as he should have been.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Espionage_and_Intelligence/

So just out of curiousity, at what point will conservatives be upset with this whole thing? I will admit, I am a moderate that leans to the left, so my tipping point was long ago. To me, it is clear Bush is willing to trample on whatever civil liberties it takes to prevent another 9/11. Now some of you may be in favor of that. He and other conservatives seem to think that longevity is the single most important thing in life. If that were true, I could move to any number of countries with more freedom and a higher life expectancy, though I would likely pay higher taxes. America is great because of the Constitution. I, for one, would rather assume a slightly larger risk of a terrorist attack than have civil liberties trampelled on repeatedly. If people keep justifying anything Bush does in the name of preventing terrorism, where does it stop? If he declares martial law is that OK? That would likely reduce the likelihood of another attack. Help me understand why there is not the outrage on this issue I think there should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

This administration has done nothing that any other administration since the passage of FISA in what...1978? In fact the controls put in by the administration surpass those of any other administration.

The Senate intelligence committee was briefed in great detail no less than 4 times and no one, including the Honorble (cough) Nancy Pelosi raised any objection.

This is just another off target attack by Dems desperate in their fear that if Iraq continues to go well they are SOL in 2006.

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
At what point will conservatives admit Bush has gone too far?


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, much further. Maybe never.

[ QUOTE ]
I, for one, would rather assume a slightly larger risk of a terrorist attack than have civil liberties trampelled on repeatedly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which civil liberties did you enjoy prior to the Bush administration that you now find yourself incapable to exercise?

If you can answer this question with any degree of honesty, then perhaps this conservative (me) will admit Bush has gone too far.

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I, for one, would rather assume a slightly larger risk of a terrorist attack than have civil liberties trampelled on repeatedly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which civil liberties did you enjoy prior to the Bush administration that you now find yourself incapable to exercise?

If you can answer this question with any degree of honesty, then perhaps this conservative (me) will admit Bush has gone too far.

[/ QUOTE ]

History has shown us time and time again that once we get to that point, it will be too late. It really scares me that people think the way you do.

Oops, we are already there:

"The billed, named the Ohio Patriot Act is so restrictive on civil rights that it authorizes police to arrest anyone that refuses to give up their personal information when questioned without a warrant, or a plausible reason to be questioned. In addition, anyone using public transportation would be required to show photo identification. Anyone who refuses will also be arrested."

SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS, SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS

Somehow I doubt anything will change your mind.

[BluffTHIS!]

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

[ QUOTE ]
History has shown us time and time again that once we get to that point, it will be too late.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please then, treat us to a crash history course on democratically, constitutionally guided nations with penchants for gun ownership that have been stripped of their civil liberties and unable to return amidst their subsequent demise, and corroborate your statement of what history has proven. Elaborate on what you mean by "that point", since possibly you are in disagreement with the OP that we have "gone too far", less you feel it is "too late".

[ QUOTE ]
It really scares me that people think the way you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly think I am oblivious to my own civil liberties, and my own awareness as to where the government shall and shall not tread? Are you aware that I hail from the militia capital of the world, where a commonly referred-to motto is "When All Else Fails, Vote from the Rooftops"?

Tell me, in what way do I think? (since it scares you so much)

[sirio11]

There is a point where parallel lines intersect.

I think that is the point.

As I said in the original post, I am biased against this administration. The thing about this is that both sides seem to think that they are so obviously correct that they fail to consider the merits of the other side. I have no desire to start a flame war and I don't mean anything personally on what is a very contentious issue.

To reply to a few points.

1) I am tired of hearing the argument that other presidents and administrations did the same thing. Even if that were true, that is a poor argument. Regardless, I have yet to see any evidence that past presidents have engaged in behavior this egregious.

2) I will concede that both political parties are descipable in their non-stop sniping of each other. Yes, the Democrats complain about a lot of things, but the Republicans were bad too when Clinton was in charge. I have no desire to argue which side is nastier other than they are both horrible.

3) Asking me what civil liberties I have lost is a transparent argument. Any American's loss of civil liberties equates to a loss for us all. Since I am a law-abiding citizen, should I not object to other people losing their rights? If people keep justifying all of this, what is to stop my rights from being violated in the future?

4) Please, no more of this "un-patriotic" argument. If I hear this one more time, I will want to vomit. Essentially you are saying I should support everything the president does during wartime. Bush had a time to be basically immune to criticism immediately after 9-11. Questioning those in charge is exactly what makes Democracy work.

First, happy birthday.

Second, there are some conservatives that would not admit that Bush has gone too far even if he announced that he was dissolving Congress, cancelling the 2006 and 2008 elections, and assuming power "indefinitely" in the name of national security. They would say that these are "temoporary" measures that are necessary because we are at war. More to the point, they would cheer any maneuver, no matter how undemocratic, unconstitutional or unprincipled, that kept their side in power.

[andyfox]

"All civilian citizens are also soldiers for our country in the war on terror. We have to give up some things, both in order to prevent further attacks on our homeland, and in order that our troops and intelligence agents in the field might have the best available intelligence. And they need our moral support and unity as well."

Just a second there, commander. This is not totally militarized society in which every citizen is in the army. Nor is it a police state that requires unity for the national interest to be served. Saddam Hussein required unity. I thought that's what we were fighting against.

[BluffTHIS!]

You know what I meant. Our responsibilities on the home front like rationing during WWII. We have sacrifices to make as well. Except they are more petty inconveniences which the libs think are the road to fascism, because they can't get past their selfish "My" ("my" rights) to "We" ("our" common good and defense).

[ QUOTE ]
Second, there are some conservatives that would not admit that Bush has gone too far even if he announced that he was dissolving Congress, cancelling the 2006 and 2008 elections, and assuming power "indefinitely" in the name of national security.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct, though ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
More to the point, they would cheer any maneuver, no matter how undemocratic, unconstitutional or unprincipled, that kept their side in power .

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is not. Here is what would actually happen:

http://www.sbceo.k12.ca.us/~vms/carlton/julius4.jpg

Et Tu, Riddick?

[QuadsOverQuads]

The true kool-aid drinkers?

Never.

Don't bother them with evidence and facts, they're not listening.


q/q

[xpokerx]

I don't see the problem with the signals intelligence, there is nothing illegal about it and nothing unprecedented about it. Just curious, but where were you complaining when Clinton was doing this, and Reagan, and Carter?

[ACPlayer]

The conservatives that are still supporting the administration will never change their mind, never.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, there are some conservatives that would not admit that Bush has gone too far even if he announced that he was dissolving Congress, cancelling the 2006 and 2008 elections, and assuming power "indefinitely" in the name of national security.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, there are not.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second, there are some conservatives that would not admit that Bush has gone too far even if he announced that he was dissolving Congress, cancelling the 2006 and 2008 elections, and assuming power "indefinitely" in the name of national security.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are one of them.


q/q

[BCPVP]

If I was, you'd be the first I'd oppress. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Seriously though, there are no conservatives who would support any of the measures Elliot mentioned. He's clearly confused as to what a conservative is.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not much outrage?

3) Also as I said in another thread, these are temporary measures and there is absolutely no justification other than fear-mongering and Bush-bashing, to argue "slippery slope". We have very effective legislative, judicial and constitutional remedies if the government should be perceived by a majority to have gone too far.



[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the whole point of having a bill of rights and constitution to protect the rights of the minority when those when in the majority think that it's ok to deny their rights "for the public good"?

This country did survive J. Edgar Hoover, but then he didn't pass any laws.... But he does illustrate exactly why it is a slippery slope, because when those in power can control the system enough to maintain that power, then what protection do you have from corruption?
None.

Also how temporary is a "War on terror" that doesn't end as long as there is terrorism in the world?

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
Except they are more petty inconveniences which the libs think are the road to fascism, because they can't get past their selfish "My" ("my" rights) to "We" ("our" common good and defense).

[/ QUOTE ]

Capitalism and liberty are built on the concept of ME over we. Are you a commie now? Lenin would have loved that statement.

[ QUOTE ]
If I was, you'd be the first I'd oppress. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Seriously though, there are no conservatives who would support any of the measures Elliot mentioned. He's clearly confused as to what a conservative is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never been more tempted to find an "O rly" owl pic.

So have you not been reading BluffTHIS's posts, or are you saying that he is somehow not a conservative.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
1) I am tired of hearing the argument that other presidents and administrations did the same thing. Even if that were true, that is a poor argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a poor argument - either the person using the argument is using it incorrectly or you're not getting it. The point of this argument is not to excuse the current administration's abuses. The point is to demonstrate the fallacy of those who use the current administration's abuses as evidence that their favored side would be better overlords than the current administration.

Replacing "R" thugs with "D" thugs isn't going to fix this problem.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So have you not been reading BluffTHIS's posts, or are you saying that he is somehow not a conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he's advocating the things you listed (which I don't think he is but I wasn't paying much attention), then he's not a conservative.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) I am tired of hearing the argument that other presidents and administrations did the same thing. Even if that were true, that is a poor argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a poor argument - either the person using the argument is using it incorrectly or you're not getting it. The point of this argument is not to excuse the current administration's abuses. The point is to demonstrate the fallacy of those who use the current administration's abuses as evidence that their favored side would be better overlords than the current administration.

Replacing "R" thugs with "D" thugs isn't going to fix this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is overused in all walks of life. Two wrongs do not make a right and previous administration behavior does not excuse Bush. Are baseball players excused from using steroids because others were doing it? Of course not. Even if other administrations did this, I trust the current one much less to draw the line. That is partly my bias, but I think many people will agree with that point. Bush and his most ardent supporters seem totally unwilling to admit a mistake. This is what worries me. If people keep justifying one thing after another, my question is where does it stop. There is obviously a trade-off where protecting liberties becomes more important than stopping terrorists. It seems like many are willing to go much further before drawing that line.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So have you not been reading BluffTHIS's posts, or are you saying that he is somehow not a conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he's advocating the things you listed (which I don't think he is but I wasn't paying much attention), then he's not a conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elliot is able to read between the lines and discern the fact that I am advocating Bush dissolving congress and ruling by decree, from the fact that I agree with the Patriot Act and some minimal restrictions on our liberties during time of war. I'm surprised the rest of you aren't as perceptive.

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except they are more petty inconveniences which the libs think are the road to fascism, because they can't get past their selfish "My" ("my" rights) to "We" ("our" common good and defense).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Capitalism and liberty are built on the concept of ME over we. Are you a commie now? Lenin would have loved that statement.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha. My thoughts exactly when I read this. Of course, commies and facists have a lot in common with the concept of the State over the Individual.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I am not going to interfere in this US discussion, but I think that in most of these discussions the average citizen (not necessarily average "politard" /images/graemlins/smile.gif) is not aware that the current datamining surveillance techniques are incredible powerful and sophisticated (i.e. how many know that CIA are able to turn on the microphone on whatever cellular phone they would like to, and thus bug the room, at any time without the user noticing?). I think that if more people were aware of that, more scepticism would arise to how extensive it should be.

In Norway we had a scandal regarding previous extensive use of surveillance a decade ago. It was concluded that we are better off with less surveillance and more terror etc. than with maximum surveillance, and now the surveillance authorities' power is limited, but that's a judgement for each country to make (which surely isn't easy).

[ QUOTE ]
Elliot is able to read between the lines and discern the fact that I am advocating Bush dissolving congress and ruling by decree, from the fact that I agree with the Patriot Act and some minimal restrictions on our liberties during time of war. I'm surprised the rest of you aren't as perceptive.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Not quite. I didn't say anything about you advocating anything. I said only that you would support the measures I stated if Bush took them. It's reflexive with you. Beer, too.

So which one of you is BGC?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
(i.e. how many know that CIA are able to turn on the microphone on whatever cellular phone they would like to, and thus bug the room, at any time without the user noticing?)

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this to be true, and have you any good links for us?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(i.e. how many know that CIA are able to turn on the microphone on whatever cellular phone they would like to, and thus bug the room, at any time without the user noticing?)

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this to be true, and have you any good links for us?

[/ QUOTE ]

It *might* be possible for them to do this. There are some phones that have an "auto-answer" mode, and if you have them in "silent" mode you can effectively call them and start listening. However, this is detectable simply because the display of the phone will switch to the "call active" screen.

Now, it's also possible that the CIA makes all cell manufacturers and service providers install a backdoor that lets them remotely activate the phone with no visible status indicators. Of course, this also would be detectable, since the phone will be pumping out it's normal transmission to the nearest tower. A clock radio near your phone is enough to tip you off if you have a TDMA or GSM phone. CDMA phones tend to generate less of that type of interference, but their transmissions are still detectable by rudimentary equipment.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(i.e. how many know that CIA are able to turn on the microphone on whatever cellular phone they would like to, and thus bug the room, at any time without the user noticing?)

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this to be true, and have you any good links for us?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have any good links, but I know it is possible. Look upon your cellular phone as a centrally controlled client, because that is what it really is. When you answer a phone call you basically send a signal to the central server cluster to open a channel through the cellular phone network. The process instructs your phone to turn on the microphone among other things. Elements of this process can be used to turn the microphone on without activating i.e. the loudspeaker or giving a ring signal. To avoid it, you need to disconnect the battery.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I am speaking of GSM-phones.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
However, this is detectable simply because the display of the phone will switch to the "call active" screen.

[/ QUOTE ]
It can be activated without this.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, it's also possible that the CIA makes all cell manufacturers and service providers install a backdoor that lets them remotely activate the phone with no visible status indicators.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not necessary to install a backdoor. The functionality is needed for other processes and is thus already present.


[ QUOTE ]
Of course, this also would be detectable, since the phone will be pumping out it's normal transmission to the nearest tower. A clock radio near your phone is enough to tip you off if you have a TDMA or GSM phone. CDMA phones tend to generate less of that type of interference, but their transmissions are still detectable by rudimentary equipment.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you can buy a detector at price appx. $1 which you can install on your phone which makes it impossible for the phone to send information (bugging the room) without you being aware (a red light will turn on).

[Arnfinn Madsen]

And while elaborating on countersurveillance (you guys may be needing it some day /images/graemlins/wink.gif), there exists also cellular phones that encrypts all sound collected from the microphone, thus making bugging the room very difficult (I don't know if CIA has cracked the algorythm or not). However, with such a phone you can only make calls to other similar phones, not to a regular phone.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
2) In judging how much governmental intrusion and surveillance is justified, what is important is not the increased probability that any one of us indivudually might be harmed, but that the US might suffer even 1 more such large attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you frame it like this --- it doesn't sound TOO bad, but unfortunately it isn't just one person who is harmed by a loss of civil liberties as you are suggesting.

[ QUOTE ]
We have very effective...judicial and constitutional remedies if the government should be perceived by a majority to have gone too far.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's either unconstitutional or it isn't. Wouldn't that be judicial activism to say that it is constitutional today and then tomorrow (because a lot of people disagree) it is suddently unconstitutional.

-------------
We have very effective...judicial and constitutional remedies if the government should be perceived by a majority to have gone too far.
--------------

Yeah man, thats a dangerous statement. When the MAJORITY thinks we went to far? Right now the government has a very effective propaganda system that tricks people into thinking that another attack in imminent if they dont give up all their rights.

We can fight this without changing any rights. We can fight this without destroying the constitution.

[Exsubmariner]

When he tries to appoint his White House Counsel to the SCOTUS......

Oh wait, that already happened.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except they are more petty inconveniences which the libs think are the road to fascism, because they can't get past their selfish "My" ("my" rights) to "We" ("our" common good and defense).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Capitalism and liberty are built on the concept of ME over we. Are you a commie now? Lenin would have loved that statement.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha. My thoughts exactly when I read this. Of course, commies and facists have a lot in common with the concept of the State over the Individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and we all know that there is nothing in the world more important than your wants and your needs. I take it then that Communism and Fascism would be acceptable provided you were in charge?

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
I take it then that Communism and Fascism would be acceptable provided you were in charge?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, nothing in my post suggests that.
But the idea has certainly crossed the mind of others:

[ QUOTE ]
George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000

[/ QUOTE ]

[CORed]

Everything's fine. Bush is not a fascist. He know's what he's doing. Just drink your koolaid now and everything will be much better.

[cardcounter0]

Because they have already done it to bust a strip club owner trying to get liquor licenses (now there is a 9/11 National Security threat!) by reverse engineering his on-board navigation system in his car and listening to conversations between him and his lawyer inside his car (forget about attorney client relationship also).

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Because they have already done it to bust a strip club owner trying to get liquor licenses (now there is a 9/11 National Security threat!) by reverse engineering his on-board navigation system in his car and listening to conversations between him and his lawyer inside his car (forget about attorney client relationship also).


[/ QUOTE ]

I recall reading some news story along those lines but forget details. However that seems to be OnStar not cell phones, and law enforcement nor CIA.

I'm not saying Arnfinn is wrong; I'm not yet convinced he's completely right either.

[cardcounter0]

Okay, you are right. They can do it with the cell phone technology in an on-board naviagtion system, but can't do it with a regular cell phone.

Oh, yeah. And only "law enforcement" could do it, the CIA wouldn't know how.

Hahahahaha! Are you really that stupid?

[shakingspear]

[ QUOTE ]
1) I am tired of hearing the argument that other presidents and administrations did the same thing. Even if that were true, that is a poor argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2) ...but the Republicans were bad too when Clinton was in charge.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thread is way past this, but I found it kind of funny.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

MMMMMMM,
wanted to find a link for you and searched through all the mobile systems manufacturers. But then I decided to check Wikipedia /images/graemlins/smile.gif, and there was a link there which explains why it is possible (without mentioning it). Look at this chart and remember that the initial channel request and number sending etc. coming from the phone can be manipulated (somebody else representing the unit), and thus the call can be established without the subscriber's knowledge.

Link (http://www.eventhelix.com/RealtimeMantra/Telecom/GSM_Originating_Call_Flow.pdf)

It contains however:
[ QUOTE ]

At this point, the mobile phone displays
a message on the screen to indicate that
call setup is being attempted.


[/ QUOTE ]
I know they have a workaround, but I am not totally sure how (if they skip this part of the procedure or alters the phone's software).