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/Espio..._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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.