Reason Magazine

Site Search

Rodgers Gets it Right

T.J. Rodgers, founder and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, has penned an op-ed that frames the War on Terror and its impact on civil liberties correctly. Namely, that there are worse things in the world than another 9/11, a 24/7 police state for one:

What's the worst thing that Al-Qaida can do to America? We have probably already seen it. Of course, the government can talk about bigger things, like the use of weapons of mass destruction, to justify its use of totalitarian tactics.

I would much rather live as a free man under the highly improbable threat of another significant Al-Qaida attack than I would as a serf, spied on by an oppressive government that can jail me secretly, without charges. If the Patriot Act defines the term "patriot," then I am certainly not one.

By far, our own government is a bigger threat to our freedom than any possible menace posed by Al-Qaida.

The architects of the maximum security state do not think this way. In fact, they probably do not understand Rodgers' argument in the slightest and assume he is making some sort of moral equivalence claim about the American government and al Qaida. Or perhaps that Rodgers would not say such things if he understood the wholesome motives behind the security measures he fears.

But Rodgers gets it. We get it. A lot of us get it. More people need to start saying it out loud, though.

There are worse things than another 9/11.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Send this article to:

« Reason Writers Around Town | Main | Gillespie on C-SPAN, Way Too… »

Comments to "Rodgers Gets it Right":

Warren | December 31, 2005, 8:46am | #

Amen

thoreau | December 31, 2005, 9:16am | #

1) Amen.

2) Be careful, however, with the "I'd rather take my chances" argument. Security and liberty is NOT a zero sum game. As just one example, I'd rather not live in a country where Arab immigrants live in fear of the police. I'd rather live in a country where Arab immigrants have a friendly relationship with the police, just in case one of them notices something troublesome.

3) Dude, when you use the word "serf" you're just begging for trouble on this forum :)

4) To express my gratitude for that excellent commentary, I'm going to Whole Foods to get some yummy snacks and ship them to Rodgers! :)

tomWright | December 31, 2005, 9:20am | #

shout it brother!

idiot | December 31, 2005, 9:24am | #

you damn liberals! don't you remember 9/11? these people want to KILL us! the government just wants to protect us. what's a few civil liberties if it keeps us safe? the founding fathers were a bunch of pinko ass commie liberals!

Stephen Macklin | December 31, 2005, 9:25am | #

There are worse things than another 9/11.

So we should just sit back and let it happen?

A defense and foreign policy of "bring on the car bombs, they're not really all that bad" sounds like a real winner to me.

Vladimir Paxyzban | December 31, 2005, 9:25am | #

That's not funny -- I WAS A SERF!

Jennifer | December 31, 2005, 9:30am | #

So we should just sit back and let it happen? A defense and foreign policy of "bring on the car bombs, they're not really all that bad" sounds like a real winner to me.

No, Stephen, but we can defend ourselves without gutting the Constitution or giving the executive branch carte blanche to do almost whatever it wants, so long as it takes the trouble to first say "We're doing this to fight terrorists."

Mr. F. Le Mur | December 31, 2005, 9:36am | #

Terrorism should be legalized and (cough) taxed.

Ugh | December 31, 2005, 9:49am | #

It's been clear to me for some time that the people running around insisting that we have to do this and that, that "we are at war!," and submitting to every thing the government wants are just a bunch of f***ing cowards.

Javier | December 31, 2005, 9:49am | #

Le Mur, nice one--got a laugh out of me.

This reminds me of something I came across while reading CATO's regulation magazine:
Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began counting) is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by severe allergic reaction to peanuts.
The real danger of terrorism is typically not the actual destruction caused by terrorists, but rather our overreaction to such destruction. Do we get so worked up about allergic reactions to peanuts? I recognize that terrorism is more threatening than peanuts, but most people's fears about terrorism are borderline absurd.

Stephen Macklin | December 31, 2005, 9:51am | #

I'm not aware that anyone had been given or assumed to have carte blanche. Nor have I seen any evidence of any individual's rights being trampled. Nor have I seen any evidence of anything remotely hinting at approaching a 24/7 police state.

The sky is not falling.

Jennifer | December 31, 2005, 9:57am | #

I'm not aware that anyone had been given or assumed to have carte blanche.

The president says he can authorize wiretaps of Americans with absolutely no oversight, or checks and balances.

Nor have I seen any evidence of any individual's rights being trampled.

Jose Padilla is the only one whose name we actually know, but there are more, and the government insists that if these prisoners are given trials to determine their guilt then somehow the terrorists will win.

We didn't have to ignore the Constitution to fight the Soviet Union, which had a huge army and enough nukes to wipe out the planet, but we have to ignore it to fight a few thousand religious nuts living in caves?

Ron Hardin | December 31, 2005, 10:02am | #

I myself try to make everything I think more public, not less.

But then I'm pretty tactless.

Where you run into trouble is if you move into a town that has attracted busybodies and they start legislating soap opera.

Stay out where the farmers are, is my advice. Vote no to township incorporation.

If anybody suggests the need to upgrade the local airport with covered walkways, move far away.

There's the threats to liberty.

Muslims are just another kind of busybody.

Looked at that way, the patriot act is a blow for freedom.

Daniel | December 31, 2005, 10:11am | #

So we should just sit back and let it happen?


That is an awful argument. Finding fault with an overzealous reaction to a terrorist attack does not mean people are willing to sit on their hands.

An open society seems incapable of stopping terrorism completely.

Would you prefer a "closed society" with no terrorism? I wouldn't.

Ron Hardin | December 31, 2005, 10:17am | #

The check and balance is every four years, the loser of the election actually does lose. That was the Gore threat ; talk about losing liberty. Keep recounting until I win would do it.

I think it's likely that most people support the President's activity, and if there's a mismash going on about whether he's allowed to do it, the no's are likely to lose.

The question has been raised and probably answered already.

If he's wiretapping his political enemies, it would go the other way.

There's no slippery slope. 50% of the voters is where it stops.

It's not a bad thing to keep the legality open, for that reason.

Some sharp operator would game the constitution otherwise, and we couldn't vote on it.

pilight | December 31, 2005, 10:21am | #

Can't we invoke Godwin's Law for claiming Orwell/Big Brother/1984?

There are legitimate concerns over what the government is doing and has done, but overblown claims about police states aren't going to taken seriously by anyone that's not already convinced.

Stephen Macklin | December 31, 2005, 10:24am | #

The president says he can authorize wiretaps of Americans with absolutely no oversight, or checks and balances.

You left out the part about the wiretaps being targeted at people who had been identified by other intelligence as hiving ties to terrorists. You left out the fact that all of this was done with the knowledge of the Department of Justice, the FISA Court, and Congressional leadership.

Jose Padilla is the only one whose name we actually know, but there are more, and the government insists that if these prisoners are given trials to determine their guilt then somehow the terrorists will win.

I guess you are referring to captured terrorists and other identified enemy combatants. I believe the governments argument is that these are not criminal matters but military ones. Also that a trial in open court would necessitate the divulgence of classified information that might aid the enemy. (But I guess the New York Times and Washington Post sort of make that a moot point)

We didn't have to ignore the Constitution to fight the Soviet Union, which had a huge army and enough nukes to wipe out the planet, but we have to ignore it to fight a few thousand religious nuts living in caves?Since thus far there has been no determination made on the Constitutionality of the NSA program it is not clear that it has been ignored. And since we have been using wiretaps to gain intelligence for decades (basically since there have been wires to tap) what makes you think the exact same thing wasn't done in fighting the Soviet Union? And refresh my memory, how many civilians did the Soviet Union kill in their attacks on U.S. Soil?

andy | December 31, 2005, 10:25am | #

"There's no slippery slope. 50% of the voters is where it stops."

Well, the scary part is that the scenario of 50+% of voters agreeing with the government's tactics or at least being unaware (and voting them back in) is not unlikely. Most people are either too stupid to recognize authoritarianism or too authoritarian-minded to care.

Jennifer | December 31, 2005, 10:26am | #

Can't we invoke Godwin's Law for claiming Orwell/Big Brother/1984?

Orwell meant 1984 to serve as a warning, not a source of comfort. And he would probably be sick, if he were still alive and saw people waving his book around as a justification for government dishonesty: "There are no telescreens, so any comparison to 1984 must be completely untrue!"

Jennifer | December 31, 2005, 10:29am | #

You left out the part about the wiretaps being targeted at people who had been identified by other intelligence as hiving ties to terrorists.

So they say. You're willing to take their word on it?

You left out the fact that all of this was done with the knowledge of the Department of Justice, the FISA Court, and Congressional leadership.

You, apparently, are unaware that Bush is claiming he does not NEED to go through FISA to get these wiretaps. That's the problem--not that he is wiretapping, but that he is ignoring the laws pertaining to it.

Stephen Macklin | December 31, 2005, 10:30am | #

Daniel,

When someone says there are worse things than another 9/11 what are we supposed to think?

I am not arguing for a closed society nor I do I think anyone anywhere is.

But to assert that the threshold for how much we should do is another attack that kills 3,000 people is appalling.

Emmanuel Goldstein | December 31, 2005, 10:30am | #

Do you hear anybody railing against me on a daily basis?

Didn't think so. This is nothing like 1984. So what are you guys so worried about?

George Orwell | December 31, 2005, 10:35am | #

I did not write my book as a warning of what a bad government can lead to; I wrote it to set limits on what constitutes a bad government. So long as there are no telescreens or Ministry of Love, you have absolutely nothing to fear.

Mr. F. Le Mur | December 31, 2005, 10:36am | #

The real danger of terrorism is typically not the actual destruction caused by terrorists, but rather our overreaction to such destruction.

I made a similar statement on Usenet a couple of days after 9-11, and one guy reported me to the FBI and another one wanted to have a fistfight (he chickened out when I took him up on it).

Do we get so worked up about allergic reactions to peanuts?

Just give 'em some time...in the meantime I'll start a rumor about Them putting radioactive peanuts in the water supply.

The sky is not falling.

Only because, in my humble opinion, it already fell years ago - no more airlines (or even busses) for me.

Randolph Carter | December 31, 2005, 10:40am | #

re: peanuts - if you've been in a school/institutional setting since 1995, you know the wave of peanut terror has already come to our shores.
So they don't sell anything with trace amoounts of nuts any more.

Adam | December 31, 2005, 10:42am | #

So we should just sit back and let it happen?

Talk about a "failure of imagination."

The single most productive thing we did to prevent another 9/11 was to armor the cockpit doors on airplanes, and we had to abdicate approximately zero rights to do so.

The Owner's Manual | December 31, 2005, 10:50am | #

It was Nately's whore's grandfather who said, "It is better to live on your knees than to die on your feet."

Many Americans would actually prefer living with crimped privacy to dying on their feet.

Those who feel that the chance of, say, their phone calls turning up on government headsets, might wish to define this as living on their knees, though. If the absence of eavesdropping meant some loony muslim made them die on their feet, I guess they'd go happily.

Or maybe they'll prefer to die on their feet trying to overthrow the government.

Most likely, we'll get what we got after the last two presidential elections -- empty promises to move out of the country to someplace 'freer.'

layer3addict | December 31, 2005, 10:56am | #

idiot wrote:
you damn liberals! don't you remember 9/11? these people want to KILL us! the government just wants to protect us. what's a few civil liberties if it keeps us safe? the founding fathers were a bunch of pinko ass commie liberals!

LMAO... You are kidding right??? Because if you are serious, then at least your pseudonym is accurate.

Russ R | December 31, 2005, 10:58am | #

"By far, our own government is a bigger threat to our freedom than any possible menace posed by Al-Qaida."

Jerry | December 31, 2005, 10:59am | #

I can't think of a single civil liberty I've lost since the Patriot Act was first passed. I can't think of any that Rogers has lost either.

McCain-Feingold is a far bigger assault on our liberties than the Patriot Act.

layer3addict | December 31, 2005, 11:05am | #

I can't think of a single civil liberty I've lost since the Patriot Act was first passed. I can't think of any that Rogers has lost either.


Ever hear of the Fourth Ammendment?

Jennifer | December 31, 2005, 11:27am | #

I can't think of a single civil liberty I've lost since the Patriot Act was first passed.

If Jerry's fine, so too is the country.

Jack | December 31, 2005, 12:09pm | #

Reggie Rivers wrote a very similar column in the Denver Post back on *November 1, 2001*. I can't find a link to a version on-line, so here it is reposted from LexisNexis:

November 1, 2001 Thursday 2D EDITION

SECTION: DENVER & THE WEST; Pg. B-07

HEADLINE: Value of freedom immeasurable

BYLINE: Reggie Rivers,

My father served in the U.S. Air Force for 23 years. I have four siblings who are career Air Force enlistees and, in the event of war, each of them knows that he or she may have to risk his or her life to defend the freedoms we have in this country.

Many men and women have died to protect our constitutional rights. The willingness to die is required of everyone in the military. Freedom is more valuable than a particular soldier's life, or even tens of thousands of soldiers' lives. Shouldn't freedom be worth thousands of civilian lives, too?

Our national focus is on security. We want to be safe at home, safe in our cars, safe at work, safe on airplanes, safe at the mall and safe at the ball game. So acute is our need for security that we're willing to give up our freedom to get it.

Imagine if our men and women in uniform had the same attitude. Their commander gives the order to charge a hill, and they sit back and say, 'Dang, Sarge, that looks kind of dangerous. I'm not sure this freedom we're defending is really worth the risk. What good is it to me if I get killed? Why don't we just give up some of the freedom and stay back here where it's safe?'

Our military doesn't do that. They put themselves in harm's way. They get shot, bombed, gassed, captured and tortured, because freedom is worth the price.

Where is our commitment as regular citizens? Shouldn't we be willing to risk our lives for freedom? As many as 6,000 civilians were killed on Sept. 11, and we're so terrified that we allow our legislators to strip away our freedoms and ratchet us down into a maximum-security prison of sorts.

A few weeks ago, President Bush urged us to live normal lives. He wanted us to get on airplanes, go to work and do all the things we'd normally do.

Part of that is to shore up our economy, but the real point is that by continuing to live according to our normal routines, we're defending freedom.

We're saying, 'Yes, terrorists may kill a few thousand of us at a time, but that threat it not enough to make us cower in fear.'

Unfortunately, that's exactly what we're doing - cowering. We're allowing our lawmakers to strip away our freedoms and we're not even putting up a fight. We're refusing to charge the hill, because we're afraid that some of us may get hurt or killed.

Is freedom real or is it just a silly idea that can be indulged only when we're not under attack?

One of the many critical e-mails I've received during the past few weeks summed up my position more succinctly than I ever could. The writer, 'Steve,' wrote: 'Reggie, your problem is that you fear the government more than you fear criminals and terrorists.'

I smiled. Finally, someone who understands me. Our founding fathers also feared the dangerous, expansive, coercive tyranny of government far more than the threat of criminals or terrorists.

As we've seen by dramatic example, terrorists have a certain amount of power. They can scare us, hurt us and even kill us. But ultimately, they can't take away our freedoms; only we can do that.

If a criminal breaks into my house, I can defend myself and/or call the police. But if the government breaks into my house there's nothing I can do but stand and watch.

Yes, I fear the government more than I fear criminals. I'm not willing to let my concern about terrorists eclipse my commitment to freedom.

Are you?

Former Denver Broncos player Reggie Rivers (reggierivers@clearchannel.com) writes Thursdays on The Post op-ed page and is a talk host on KHOW Radio (630 AM, weekdays from 3 to 5 p.m.).
----------------------------------------

Wintermute | December 31, 2005, 1:10pm | #

Click on Stephen Macklin's name to see his troll confession of today and what he thinks of the people who post here.

jimmy | December 31, 2005, 1:21pm | #

what is so hilarious about this whole line of argument is that the state, at all levels, is and has been abusing our civil liberties in a number of ways for years. but the only time the left complains is when the state targets an infinitessimally small number of terrorist sympathizers, in a time of war. and the paltry remains of the libertarian movement march lockstep with their new marxist buddies.

that is not to say that concern is not justified. the potential for abuse is clear. we should oppose many provisions of the patriot act, and many other measures as well(although anyone opposing incarcerating people who have taken up military action against us must be either insane or secretly cheering for al qaeda). but this "US=totalitarianism" argument is ridiculous. my civil liberties are violated more every day by ordinary cops and bureaucrats than by the "war on terror."

and there are worse things than another 9/11. a nuclear terrorist attack, for example. so when i hear about people inside this country communicating with al qaeda members in the aftermath of 9/11...if it's true...i don't want to tap their phones. i want to bash their heads in.

Qbryzan | December 31, 2005, 1:33pm | #

so when i hear about people inside this country communicating with al qaeda members in the aftermath of 9/11...if it's true...i don't want to tap their phones. i want to bash their heads in.

As do I. And if that is all they are doing I have no problem with it. But here's a question - if they are tapping the phones of only people who communicate with Al Qaeda members, why do they feel the need to circumvent the courts? Surely they could easily get the necessary legal approval to do this.

There must be a reason why the executive branch is ignoring guidelines and refusing oversight - aren't you at all curious why?

thoreau | December 31, 2005, 1:33pm | #

although anyone opposing incarcerating people who have taken up military action against us must be either insane or secretly cheering for al qaeda

I have absolutely no objection to incarcerating terrorists. If there is evidence that somebody has been involved in terrorism, simply present it in a trial. If the evidence stands up, then I have no problem incarcerating the person.

Even the Nazis got trials. If the agents of a major industrial power that ravaged a continent and murdered millions can stand trial, surely a handful of fanatics can be safely tried as well.

Karen Cox | December 31, 2005, 1:38pm | #

There are so many problems with the "if the government is wathcing them, they must be doing something illegal" argument that I hardly know where to begin, but let's start with this one: it doesn't generally work.

The purpose of the warrant requirement is not to muck up law enforcement, it's to make sure the cops have a good reason to be listening to this particular person. This serves two purposes: ensuring that the police don't disturb people who aren't doing anything wrong, and to make sure the cops don't waste their time on said innocent people. It's possible the cops could find something by listening to every conversation the country, but it's much more likely they'll miss the detailed plans to blow up Wall Street because they're sifting through thousands of hours of taped arguments over whether to watch "Friends" reruns or "Emeril Live." If they're doing the latter, they are not investigating the former.

Also, wiretaps and snooping have not, historically, been important in foiling plots. I am a prosecutor and have worked on some large white-collar crime type cases. (Highly and tediously technical, no need to Google my name, none of 'em got much in the way of media attention, which we liked.) We found these out not through cop show antics or Le Carre shadowy snooping, but through the banal, ordinary, and routine method of tips. People who trust the police will call when they see something suspicious. Remember the Millenium Plot? That was foiled because the Clinton FBI listened when a customs agent called about one guy's highly suspicious shipments. The Olympic Park bombing? Only one person died from anything like injuries from the bomb because of an alert security guard. In all these cases, citizens and low-level officials trusted the feds enough to make reports and the feds listened.

The Bush administration attitude goes directly counter to this attitude. They make people more wary of talking to the government and less cooperative when they do, and the government agents spend lots of time wading through mountains of random, quotidian garbage looking for that one key. Forcing them to be more focused is both efficient and proper. We're safer and saner following the rules.

Warren | December 31, 2005, 1:39pm | #

what is so hilarious about this whole line of argument is that the state, at all levels, is and has been abusing our civil liberties in a number of ways for years.

the libertarian movement march lockstep with their new marxist buddies.

that is not to say that concern is not justified. the potential for abuse is clear. we should oppose many provisions of the patriot act, and many other measures as well

i don't want to tap their phones. i want to bash their heads in.

And here we find another manifestation of Orwell's 1984; doublethink.

joe | December 31, 2005, 1:46pm | #

Apparently, I must have imagined all of the lawsuits the ACLU has filed agains police departments and state and federal agencies over the last four decades.

jimmy assures us that "the left" only makes noise about civil liberties when terrorists are caught, and that's good enough for me.

thoreau | December 31, 2005, 1:47pm | #

People who trust the police will call when they see something suspicious

Exactly.

In college I knew a girl from the former Soviet Union. There was a ...situation... that she knew of. I encouraged her to contact university authorities. She didn't want to. There were a number of factors, but one of them was that growing up she developed an instinctive distrust of the authorities, and anybody who contacted them was regarded as suspicious. Even though she knew that university authorities were not at all like the KGB, it was still totally against her nature to contact the authorities.

Larry A | December 31, 2005, 2:00pm | #

The single most productive thing we did to prevent another 9/11 was to armor the cockpit doors on airplanes, and we had to abdicate approximately zero rights to do so.

I would suggest that the "single most productive thing we did to prevent another 9/11" was to cancel the policy that "if a hijacker wants the airplane, give him the airplane" in favor of everyone stomp the sucker into the carpet. In the attempted hijacks since 9/11 no hijacker has gotten anywhere near the cockpit door.

OTOH a stronger door is a great idea. And as you say neither change involved giving up rights.

joe | December 31, 2005, 2:04pm | #

Larry A,

What attempted hijackings since 9/11?

kgsam | December 31, 2005, 2:15pm | #

Successful politicians have a natural instinct for exploiting the emotioinal reactions of people.
Security hysteria is the most exploitable mood and politicians are adept at exacerbating and utilizing security hysteria to further their own agendas, usually to increase their power/authority.

The main difference between the 9/11 attacks and the earlier attempt during the Clinton administration was that the former was successful.
Had the earlier attempt succeeded, it would have been at least as spectacular and aroused a similar level of seecurity hysteria as did the 9/11 attacks. However, the intent of the perpetrators was pretty much the same in both cases. So the reason the second attack led to invasion while the earlier attempt did not was in the amount of security hysteria that was aroused in the populace.

I suggest that the justification for invasion was the same in both cases, but the ability to manipulate the populace was lacking in the earlier attempt to bring down the trade center.

Those that go along with the administrations case are still suffering from security hysteria.

jp | December 31, 2005, 2:25pm | #

The only people who complain about wiretapping are the people with something to hide. Me? I have nothing to hide. I'm not a terrorist. They can spy on me all they want, no skin off my civil liberties.

Oh -- but just don't tell the boss about my porn downloads and my dogeared copy of Atlas Shrugged.

dead_elvis | December 31, 2005, 2:25pm | #

Since it seems to be somewhat official H&R policy that the security/freedom tradeoff is a false dichotomy, it seems odd to praise the author of the article who plays into that just because he makes that tradeoff in a way you find favorable.

kgsam | December 31, 2005, 2:33pm | #

We may recall that the hijackers were allowed to take over the jets because it was official government policy that hijackers were not to be interfered with.

Post 9/11, no one will be able to take over a plane without arousing a significant response in fellow passengers.

At the same time, the U.S. government's continuous, and expedient, interference in many other countries has not made us more secure.
The CIA got the shah into power in Iran, we ended up with the Ayatollah.
The U.S. has long curried the favor of that gang of thugs, the house of Saud. Hello bin Laden.
This could go on and on.

Yes, let's trust the poiticians. They obviously know what they are doing.

thoreau | December 31, 2005, 2:36pm | #

Very good point, dead elvis.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 2:48pm | #

Be careful, however, with the "I'd rather take my chances" argument. Security and liberty is NOT a zero sum game.

We've gone back and forth on this a few times, I think, thoreau. ...and I understand what you're saying--it's not a zero sum game.

...but that's not the way people think. We have to reach people where they are. Even those who think that liberty and security is a zero sum game understand making sacrifices for a worthy cause.

Many of them understand that it's better to take our chances with getting shot by a handgun if that's what it takes to keep our Second Amendment rights. Many of them understand that it's better to suffer more crime and keep probable cause, etc. alive. ...That's not to say that the Second Amendment vs. crime or probable cause vs. crime are zero sum games. ...but even if they were, many Americans would choose liberty over better security.

A better leader would have made that argument about the War on Terror rather than playing fear monger to the cowards in our midst. This isn't London during the Blitz, but even if it was, many of us wouldn't choose the illusion of absolute security. ...Many, many Americans understand these trade offs in these terms. If only we had better leadership... ...it would have encouraged and galvanized that oh so American impulse.

...Even among those who think liberty and security a zero sum game. I don't think there's anything more patriotic than saying I'd rather take my chances than lose probable cause. ...and if the government is making the argument in those terms to the American people, making the argument that those are the choices, then those of us who prefer liberty should answer in kind. ...'cause that's the way people think.

Larry A | December 31, 2005, 2:50pm | #

What attempted hijackings since 9/11?

I remember a half-dozen or so, including the guy with bombs in his shoe heels. None of them were true "terrorists." Mostly the loser types who did hijacking previously.

But no one takes that chance any more.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 3:00pm | #

So we should just sit back and let it happen?

Straw Man Alert!

A defense and foreign policy of "bring on the car bombs, they're not really all that bad" sounds like a real winner to me.

Really, I'd like to discuss this with you further, but...

Is it possible to be in favor of both the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War and still be against the President's policies regarding civil liberties here at home?

...I can feel for you buddy, but I can't reach you if you're not even there.

CTD | December 31, 2005, 3:04pm | #

I view Mr. Macklin's trolling like I would view an impeachment trial for Bush: as an opportunity to educate.

dead_elvis | December 31, 2005, 3:06pm | #

. I don't think there's anything more patriotic than saying I'd rather take my chances than lose probable cause.

I Imagine someone might make the argument, are *you* willing to be the next victim of a murderer because the police couldn't get a warrant on someone they just knew was guilty? Or someone who was obviously guilty but got off because a search was illegal?

For some reason, in public perception, taking a bullet here at home to preserve freedom by keeping the protections of the Constitution intact is not viewed as patriotic, but going half-way around the world to get shot by a foreigner is. I don't think that's right.

Next Victim | December 31, 2005, 3:11pm | #

I am willing to be the next victim of any circumstance which arises from my willingness to adhere to my principles.

Everyone should.

wayne | December 31, 2005, 3:18pm | #

"I remember a half-dozen or so, including the guy with bombs in his shoe heels. None of them were true "terrorists." Mostly the loser types who did hijacking previously."

Actually, the guy with bomb-shoes was a terrorist, at least a wannabe. He trained at one of the lunatic mosques in England. He was also a loser type, and pretty inept, but he was a terrorist.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 3:22pm | #

I Imagine someone might make the argument, are *you* willing to be the next victim of a murderer because the police couldn't get a warrant on someone they just knew was guilty? Or someone who was obviously guilty but got off because a search was illegal?

Does give me liberty or give me death have a patriotic ring in your ear? Patrick Henry's speech wasn't given on the gallows; it was a call to arms on the battlefield. When people go to battle, I'm not so sure they're willing to die for their principles, their country, whatever--but it's clear to me that, at the very least, they're willing to take that chance!

Nathan Hale's statement on the gallows was as patriotic as patriotic can be, but he did make it from the gallows. I don't know if I'd be willing to die for my principles--I'm not sure any of us can know for certain unless we've been in that situation. ...but as I sit here typing on my keyboard, I know I'd be willing to risk my life for them. There's a difference, I think.

Claire | December 31, 2005, 3:48pm | #

I'm also with T J Rodgers. The American People should have a say in whether or not they would give up their liberties to an administration which failed to protect the people of New Orleans from pending disaster, let the dead float in the streets, the survivors brave floodwaters in their homes, or corralled under surveillance with no food, water or basic necessities, while Blackwater mercenaries threatened to pick off Walmart looters, many of whom were only searching for food/water/dry clothing to survive.

It brought to life "Les Miserables", Victor Hugo's legend of Jean Valjean, who went to prison for 20 years for trying to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family.

I'm sure that the poor people of New Orleans weren't worried in the least about Al Quaida and seriously doubt that Al Quaida was anywhere about.

The tragedy of 9-11 was truly horrifying. All in America were riveted to TV and radio stations as the drama clenched/drenched a Nation in fear.

That was over three years ago and we'll never forget it. But we must get back on track.

The population of the US is approaching 300 million people (298 million as of today). I couldn't find the figures yet for 2005, but in 2004, about 145,000 people died by homicide or accidental injury. If we extrapolate that over the 4 year period since 9-11, that's roughly 580 thousand people who've died through accidental or intentional means not involving terrorism. Five percent of the deaths were ruled as accidental, another one percent homicide.

In other words:

We're more likely to be struck by lightening than by a terrorist. We're more likely to die in a traffic accident than be hit by a terrorist. We're more likely to be murdered by a common thug than by a terrorist.

Get a Grip, America! Don't let this Misbegotten Administration turn American into a Police State. They won't protect you any more than they protected the Poor People of New Orleans.

thoreau | December 31, 2005, 3:48pm | #

Ken-

I agree that people who believe in liberty should be willing to say that a certain sacrifice of security is acceptable in exchange for liberty. I would only observe the following points, which I think we would agree on:

1) A police state can be detrimental to security. In addition to the way that it may turn off people who would otherwise cooperate (nobody's going to go inform if they see the cops as bad guys, little better than the KGB), a police state is also hopelessly inefficient. If cops are required to justify their searches and wiretaps, even if only before a relatively permissive FISA court, they are more likely to use resources effectively.

2) Many of Big Government's worst ideas indirectly aid terrorism: Anything that creates a black market tends to help terrorists (e.g. the Taliban sold heroin). And while I have no illusions that an armed populace will be able to thwart every imaginable terrorist attack, I would say that certain types of terrorist plans (e.g. anything that involves taking hostages) are more likely to run into trouble if We The People can carry concealed weapons.

3) A look around the world provides little evidence that free countries are more vulnerable to terrorism. Free and open societies may possess certain unique vulnerabilities, but less free societies also have corrupt and inefficient police forces and less civilian cooperation.

In the past few years there have been news reports of pitched gun battles in the streets of Syria and Saudi Arabia. Russia has become steadily less liberal over the past decade without seeing any noticeable decline in terrorist activity by the Chechens. And the dictator of Pakistan has had noticeably little luck in controlling Al Qaeda sympathizers among both the Pushtun tribesmen and his own intelligence services.

I say give me liberty so that I may be more secure from all enemies: Foreign, domestic, and public sector.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 4:00pm | #

I've, occasionally, understated the obvious in my time, but only by accident. ; )

Nathan Hale's alleged statement and Patrick Henry's speech are examples of what I was talkin' about, thoreau. ...The American people still know what was said, and what was supposedly said, because people responded to it.

The American people still respond to it. ...Even if liberty vs. death is a false dichotomy.

...and I do agree with you thoreau. I think we're just talkin' strategy and appeal. I wish I could get more libertarians to watch some of the better ministers out there--the ones with the best deliveries. ...just to see what works.

Keep the libertarian logic, but if we're huntin' flies, let's use some liberty/honey. ...The other side's usin' fear/vinegar. ...and, for some bad reason, we've let them embezzle our patriotism.

dead_elvis | December 31, 2005, 4:14pm | #

Does give me liberty or give me death have a patriotic ring in your ear? Patrick Henry's speech wasn't given on the gallows; it was a call to arms on the battlefield.

It certainly does to my ear. But it's on the battlefield. I would like to see the public's imagination to be taken with a patriotic call that doesn't involve war, but simply being willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary to preserve the constitution and the bill of rights.

When a criminal gets off on a "technicality", and then offends again, you don't hear people quoting Patrick Henry or doing imitations of Mel Gibson yelling "I'm willing to die for Freeeeedom!". We should though. What we need are peace-time Patrick Henrys.

Karen Cox | December 31, 2005, 4:24pm | #

I'm glad other people see the point that a closed police state doesn't make society much safer than openness does. The black market point is a good one. Providing profit to criminals is always a bad idea, as is making otherwise law-abiding types deal with criminals routinely. (I've always thought pot was a gateway drug because people buy it from drug dealers, who treat it like Best Buy does $25 DVD players. There are lots of things to which this analysis doesn't apply, but minor-league drugs make a really good example.)

Perhaps the most dangerous thing about the PATRIOT act and the warrantless searches, though is the built-in inefficiency. Forcing the NSA to write an application for a search forces them to think through whether they need it or not. I've done enough motion practice in my time to know that if you can't write the motion, you don't need the information. I've also worked with enough cop-types to know that it's very easy in that line of work to think that all requests are urgent and all information vital and all people simply unconfined criminals. They have to think that way, otherwise they fall apart. That's why there are people like me to give some kind of check to their enthusiasm. Without that check, the cops will be wasting their time listening to every phone call by every Pakistani or Indonesian grad student in North America. I don't think I want our few competent Arabic or Pashto interpreters spending their time on Achmed's Mom's request to send home an X-box for little Abdullah for Eid al-Fitr. Remember the poor Lebanese engineer who got arrested for having computer cable in his suitcase after the Oklahoma City bombing? Remember also that Timothy McVeigh was arrested because of a traffic violation and the feds listened to the local guys? Generally, there is a boring, practical argument behind every civil liberty. We need to use 'em.

Annoyed | December 31, 2005, 4:52pm | #

Reason writers and blog commenters = cowards or liars

For all this talk of a police state, "maximum security state" or however close we are to a police state on any particular day, I don't imagine that anyone here is really doing anything about it except complaining and/or not voting for George Bush. Which leads me to believe that many of the folks at Reason and the people who post comments on Hit & Run are either liars because they bitch and moan about a police state they know doesn't exist and is nowhere in sight, or they're cowards because they truly believe they live in a police state and choose to do nothing effective about it.

Or of course, you simply may not like things like the PATRIOT Act, etc., which is fine, except you ought to keep in mind that a lot more people might be willing to take their complaints seriously if you didn't yell and scream "police state" or "maximum security state" every time the government decides to do something that doesn't appeal to you.

WE White | December 31, 2005, 4:53pm | #

And when the next 9-11 comes and the public demands even more restrictions on liberty? Assuming people will respond with calm, dispassionate thinking in the aftermath of a tragedy is delusional. How many congressman voted against the patriot act back in 2001? And how many would do so after a second, or a third....

Ruthless Spears | December 31, 2005, 5:05pm | #

The terrorists have already won.
There... I said it again.

All of us, even the Bush Dynasty, are so fortunate to have this Rodgers guy around.

Noid | December 31, 2005, 5:16pm | #

Annoyed,
On what do you base your assmumption that nobody is doing anything about the police state? Just because the darned thing's increasing doesn't mean there isn't resistance. It just means that powerful forces are advancing the police state while simultaneously squelching dissent in any way they can.

I know what I and others are doing about it.

What are you doing?

What would you have us do?

Jim Walsh | December 31, 2005, 5:24pm | #

Rodgers gets it.

He does indeed. The whole idea behind terrorism is to provoke the targeted government to overreact and turn against its own citizens. In other words, the Patriot Act etc. play right into the hands of the bin Ladens of the world.


(BTW: I think idiot should get his own talk show. Christ, he's no worse than some of the guys already on the air...)

SR | December 31, 2005, 5:34pm | #

"And when the next 9-11 comes and the public demands even more restrictions on liberty? Assuming people will respond with calm, dispassionate thinking in the aftermath of a tragedy is delusional. How many congressman voted against the patriot act back in 2001? And how many would do so after a second, or a third...."

And your point is? More terrorist attacks (by somebody) will happen eventually anyway, so the ratchet effect will also happen anyway. The "we must destroy some freedom now, or we'll have to destroy more freedom later" argument is bullshit and you know it.

thoreau | December 31, 2005, 5:41pm | #

Ken-

OK, I see your point. "Give me win-win solutions that use liberty to thwart terrorists" isn't as rousing as an absolutist refrain like "Give me liberty or give me death." Reminding people of the inherent value of liberty is certainly a good thing.

And it's nice to have a prosecutor on this forum to take our side. We have somebody on this forum who claims to be a military lawyer, and he spends most of his time making excuses for whatever Big Government bullshit is coming down the pike. We have somebody who claims deep expertise in matters of national security, but her argument boils down to "If terrorists attack again we'll lose even more freedom, so don't tie the government's hands!"

Karen, you are a refreshing change. Welcome aboard.

thoreau | December 31, 2005, 5:42pm | #

And I got post #69!

Happy New Year, everybody.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 5:42pm | #

For all this talk of a police state, "maximum security state" or however close we are to a police state on any particular day, I don't imagine that anyone here is really doing anything about it except complaining and/or not voting for George Bush.

Well I was gonna seize control of the government, but I've just been so busy. ...I needed a haircut, I've got taxes to do now, there were the holidays with all the shopping, etc. ...and I still have to work on top of everything else. I mean, I'd like to save us all, and re-write the Constitution to my liking, but who has the time?

Which leads me to believe that many of the folks at Reason and the people who post comments on Hit & Run are either liars because they bitch and moan about a police state they know doesn't exist and is nowhere in sight, or they're cowards because they truly believe they live in a police state and choose to do nothing effective about it.

Like I said, busy, busy, busy.

Or of course, you simply may not like things like the PATRIOT Act, etc., which is fine, except you ought to keep in mind that a lot more people might be willing to take their complaints seriously if you didn't yell and scream "police state" or "maximum security state" every time the government decides to do something that doesn't appeal to you.

You know, I was doin' that just the other day too.

...This guy I work with says to me, "Hey, what do you wanna do for lunch today?" "Want to get some sushi?"

"I dunno", I said. "...police state."

He just kinda looked at me kinda funny, and then he says, "Well we could go to that Peruvian restraunt down by..."

And I went, "Maximum security state".

WE White | December 31, 2005, 5:43pm | #

"We must destroy freedom now...." argument is bullshit and you know it.

First of all that was not my argument. It would be more accurate to say that we must limit freedom now or destroy it later. Noticd the difference?

And yes, attacks will come, whether we do anything to stop them or not. But unless you make the extremely unlikely assumption that absolutely none of these security efforts has any effect, then not trying will mean more and bloodier attacks, ane more panicked responses,

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 5:55pm | #

It would be more accurate to say that we must limit freedom now or destroy it later. Noticd the difference?

Just for kicks, when does the freedom come back? Is it after we no longer have to worry about terrorism? ...'cause that day, my friend, will never, ever come.

But unless you make the extremely unlikely assumption that absolutely none of these security efforts has any effect, then not trying will mean more and bloodier attacks, ane more panicked responses

Why do you assume that preventing attacks is the most important thing? There are some, rather, there are many, who think that, as important as security is, some things, like probable cause and the rule of law, are even more important.

...That, by the way, isn't a panicked response. Selling the Constitution out with fear mongering is a panicked response. ...For goodness sake, it's an appeal to cowards!

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 6:17pm | #

...and, indeed, Karen Cox, by all means, on behalf of myself and likeminded commenters here, welcome. Please stick around.

We have a lot of smart commenters here, but every once in a while someone links to this site and we get a bunch of propaganda victims stormin' the gates, but that's fun too. ...sometimes. Naw, everybody's welcome.

I've seen the point made here a couple of times lately that this is one of the few, well written blogs where they allow comments, the staff reads the comments and, indeed, often responds to comments. ...I usually skip sayin' all that though and just say that this may be the best written culture/politics blog around.

Currence | December 31, 2005, 6:32pm | #

As per Annoyed comments, I have decided to begin recruiting for my newly created Libertarian Weather Underground. We will use bombs and stuff to stop the police state, instead of sitting around and analyzing the legality and morality of certain authoritarian actions. That is, after all, merely fruitless hand wringing, it would seem.

Bring your own football helmet and dynamite. Dig it?

policestate | December 31, 2005, 6:56pm | #

But perspective folks. Calling the USA circa 2006 a "police state" is a gross insult to those people unfortunate enough to live in one whether it was in the past or it is in the present.

In a police state, for example, a blog talking about ways to organize and put a stop to the governments plans invariably gets shut down by said government.

No one is going to take libertarians seriously if they don't drop the shrieking hysterics and start at least pretending to be serious about governance. Political philosophy is fairly easy, the actual implementation of sound policy based on that philosophy is far more complicated.

I'm in full agreement about the latest wiretapping snafu, but let's have some perspective. It is, at worst, the government expanding the definition of "probable cause" significantly beyond where it ought to be. But it ain't "Kristallnacht" and it ain't close, and screaming otherwise does little to get the general public to listen to your views.

WE White | December 31, 2005, 6:56pm | #

Selling out the constitution is precisely what a large majority of this country will demand if we suffer another 9-11, or a third, or a 4th. You'll be looking back to the days of the patriot act as the good old days.

Ruthless | December 31, 2005, 6:58pm | #

Currence,
Speaking as the anarchist on duty here (peaceful variety), I urge you to cease and desist with such comments.
'Tain't funny, McGhee.

Qbryzan | December 31, 2005, 7:04pm | #

Selling out the constitution is precisely what a large majority of this country will demand if we suffer another 9-11, or a third, or a 4th.

So if we really want to prevent a repeat, we should attempt to learn from the past. The 9/11 Commission report gave quite a few suggestions for making us safer and preventing another attack. Our government has mostly ignored them. It seems they'd rather spy on us than protect us.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 7:09pm | #

But perspective folks. Calling the USA circa 2006 a "police state" is a gross insult to those people unfortunate enough to live in one whether it was in the past or it is in the present.

Help me out with the comment you're referring to here. Who called the USA circa 2006 a police state?

policestate | December 31, 2005, 7:12pm | #

"The 9/11 Commission report gave quite a few suggestions for making us safer and preventing another attack. Our government has mostly ignored them. It seems they'd rather spy on us than protect us."

And again. Way overboard rhetoric.

People should dial it back and talk about the problems with the policy, and offer alternatives that address security concerns with less intrusion into the privacy of it's citizens.

But I guess it's just more emotionally satisfying to go right for the Orwell.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 7:16pm | #

Selling out the constitution is precisely what a large majority of this country will demand if we suffer another 9-11, or a third, or a 4th. You'll be looking back to the days of the patriot act as the good old days.

Speaking of Chicken Little...

So you're saying that if we don't sell out the Constitution now, we'll suffer acts of terrorism and be forced to sell out the Constitution later?

I made a New Year's Resolution about responding to those who trumpet the Constitution-as-Death-Pact memem, and, buddy, you're dancin' on it!

You ignored my question about when we get our Constitutional rights back. So when is it? After we sell out probable cause, etc., how long till we get 'em back?

Is it when there are no more terrorists? 'cause I'm not willing to wait that long. (Actually, I'm not willing to wait at all.)

Qbryzan | December 31, 2005, 7:20pm | #

People should dial it back and talk about the problems with the policy, and offer alternatives that address security concerns with less intrusion into the privacy of it's citizens.

You want suggestions and alternatives - they are in the 9/11 Commission Report. That's why I mentioned it.

Ruthless | December 31, 2005, 7:22pm | #

"He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only."

Was Patrick Henry confusing laws with liberty?
More likely he was just a William Jennings Bryant type of speech-maker.

Laws suck.
I can't believe I'm living here.
Medieval Iceland, here I come!

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 7:22pm | #

But it ain't "Kristallnacht" and it ain't close, and screaming otherwise does little to get the general public to listen to your views.

I keep going back and forth between straw man and hyperbole. ...I think it's the straw man that's doin' the hyperbole, so I'm goin' with straw man.

policestate | December 31, 2005, 7:25pm | #

"Help me out with the comment you're referring to here. Who called the USA circa 2006 a police state?"

Okay. I'm pretty good at reading comprehension:

"Namely, that there are worse things in the world than another 9/11, a 24/7 police state for one:

'What's the worst thing that Al-Qaida can do to America? We have probably already seen it. Of course, the government can talk about bigger things, like the use of weapons of mass destruction, to justify its use of totalitarian tactics.'"

JAT says Rodgers "gets it right" for starters when Rodgers says the worst thing Al Qaida can do we've "already seen." JAT has said there's worse things than another 9/11 a "police state" being one of them.

Even if you can wiggle through that traffic and try and argue that neither was arguing the US currently is a "police state," certainly the rhetoric in that regard is so plentiful that it basically amounts to the same thing.

"No, Stephen, but we can defend ourselves without gutting the Constitution or giving the executive branch carte blanche to do almost whatever it wants"

"Most people are either too stupid to recognize authoritarianism or too authoritarian-minded to care."

What am I supposed to infer from these sorts of comments? (and generally "everyone is too stupid or else they'd be as smart as me" comments are ignorable regardless of specific content).

Being crazed shouters gets you ignored. And being ignored is pretty much the fundamental challenge facing libertarians today.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 7:29pm | #

I listen to you guys--I'm sorry--crap on the Bill of Rights, and I think about the Declaration of Independence and what it meant in its historical context, and I find myself wondering...

Do y'all think of yourselves as patriotic? ...and if you do, in what sense? I mean, it's not as defenders of the Constitution, is it? I'm not tryin' to be confrontational with this; I'm just havin' a hard time circlin' that square.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 7:43pm | #

Even if you can wiggle through that traffic and try and argue that neither was arguing the US currently is a "police state," certainly the rhetoric in that regard is so plentiful that it basically amounts to the same thing.

That's an interesting wiggle you came up with there.

...Indeed, it's not entirely obvious to me that anyone was describing the USA circa 2006 as a police state. There do seem to be a lot of people who think that the degradation of probable cause, etc. sorta move us in that direction.

It's also interesting, your comment, about the rhetoric regarding probable cause, etc. being similar to talk about a police state. Maybe I do have problems with reading comprehension. When people write about not needing probable cause to tap American citizens, to my eye, it kinda reads like they're talking about a police state.

Maybe you could give me an example? ...write something that criticizes a government that chooses to ignore probable cause and doesn't sound like it's criticizing a police state.

...but you're right, I don't see much in the way of evidence to suggest that anyone argued that in 2006, we're living in a police state.

kgsam | December 31, 2005, 7:52pm | #

Jefferson warned of the gradual encroachment of government upon the liberty of people.
We are complaining about trends because we can see the ends. The difficulty is in helping others perceive the ends. It is thought that resisting the trends will help to avoid the ends.
It may be that things will have to get worse.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 7:56pm | #

By the way, I'd hate to think that any of you are from that originalist camp that blows so hard and then turns around and...

...Naw, none of you would do that!

Ruthless | December 31, 2005, 8:02pm | #

Ken Shultz,
First have a flute or two of New Years champagne up your snoot.

If you want to get back to basics, governments are the inciters of terrorists. Governments create the "we" versus "they." That wouldn't be so bad, but governments go on to say "they's" momma wears combat boots, and "they's" daddy takes bubble baths.

Families ought to be sovereign, not governments. Some families would go on to duke it out, but they would be even rarer than terrorist violence (as Rodgers points out). Come to think of it, terrorist violence would cease entirely in favor of just "a few weird families duking it out."

Peace and love in 2006.

policetstate | December 31, 2005, 8:02pm | #

"I listen to you guys--I'm sorry--crap on the Bill of Rights"

I don't think you're getting my point, so let me make it clearer:

Stop acting like such a jackass about things.

Being right about something doesn't give you "carte blanche" to be dismissive and insulting towards those that happen to disagree with you. People who have a different view over whether what is being done constitutes probable cause or not are not "crapping on the constitution" any more than people who oppose the Patriot Act are "siding with the terrorists."

It's that kind of overblown jackass rhetoric that accomplishes nothing but entrenched positions and stutlitfied debate.

I agree with you on the topic, but understand that someone who makes the following argument:

An American citizen who makes repreated contacts with an out of country party with solid ties to terror organizations is subject to search because such contacts constitute "probable cause" to conduct said search.

A person making that argument is not "crapping on the constitution." I believe they're wrong anyway, but insinuating that anyone who believes different than you is evil, careless, stupid or (usually) all three does not sound like any debate that falls under the category of "reason" to me.

kgsam | December 31, 2005, 8:04pm | #

So why would the GB team want unreviewable power to detain, secretly, anyone it says has something to do with terrorists?
Who wants a government with such power and authority?

thoreau | December 31, 2005, 8:07pm | #

We aren't a police state right now.

The problem is that there isn't a sharp dividing line. There's the USA of the late 20th century, then there's this. Then there's Singapore. Then there's Putin's Russia. Then there's China. Then there's Stalin. And lots of other regimes that fall somewhere between the ones listed.

Each step gets worse and worse, and it's not clear that any of those steps actually make us safer.

I become very worried when our leaders want to move in a more authoritarian direction without any clear security benefits to be had. The President isn't simply asking for the power to tap the phones of suspected terrorists. We already have laws allowing that. No, what he's demanding is the authority to do that without any oversight from the FISA court, which has generally been very deferential in granting warrant requests.

And the President isn't asking for the power to lock up terrorists. We already have laws for that. No, the President wants the power to do that without a trial and conviction.

History shows that the executive branch becomes very dangerous without meaningful checks and balances from the judicial branch. We aren't there yet, but the President is asking us to take significant steps in that direction.

And...aw, hell, I give up. I can't believe that this case needs to be made. I've said all I have to say, and Karen Cox has provided an even better perspective on the matter. Anybody who doesn't get it after reading this thread is simply too scared to care about freedom. Fuck it.

policestate | December 31, 2005, 8:12pm | #

"By the way, I'd hate to think that any of you are from that originalist camp that blows so hard and then turns around and...

...Naw, none of you would do that!"

And again. You still think is about "root, root for the home team" then about trying to get our points across to people currently unreceptive. Stop trying to paint people who disagree with you as hypocrites and morons and start making fair, cogent arguments to counter what they are arguing.

No one listens to people they don't like.

layer3addict | December 31, 2005, 8:13pm | #

Interesting take on the same topic by Eric Margolis over at Lew Rockwell.

Ruthless | December 31, 2005, 8:36pm | #

"Best advice you will ever hear: In all things, fly under the radar, Be invisible. Avoid the gaze or the rich and powerful as well as the poor and desperate."

futilitarian,
Welcome to the slap-happy flock of cowbirds among the H&R bovines. There are some tasty, nourishing nuggets mixed with the flapdoodle pies. Life is good.

Every nature's niche is important, except for that damned owl Al Gore is trying to protect. It's okay to wipe your ass with its feathers.

Finally, be assured that the Vestal Virgins were the inspiration of St. Francis of Assisi.

In conclusion: chirp.

Ruthless squawker | December 31, 2005, 8:54pm | #

"Who will follow vegetarians and animal activists onto state security’s watch lists? Rosicrucians, Christian Scientists, bird watchers or liberal Democrats?"

layer3addict,
Thanks for the tip.
I'm a Rosicrucian. That's right. That's the ticket! We all be kick-ass buff. See the carpet-humper up there? Beware!
Bird watcher me? Fuggedaboutit!
Heard the one about the 300 pound canary?

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 9:40pm | #

First have a flute or two of New Years champagne up your snoot.

Well if you insist!

I've got some misgivings about your anarchy, Ruthless. ...but I suspect that many of the problems due to the absence of government would be better in their own way than some of the problems associated with having a government. In a better world, anarchy would be better...

...'til then, I'm really concerned about the Constitution. I look at what the government gets away with in spite of the Constitution; it makes me shudder to think how things would be without it. When the government's so small that it doesn't matter anymore, well, I guess it won't matter. ...we can talk about gettin' rid of the Constitution then. 'til then, we've gotta use what we've got to defend ourselves from government.

...and we've got the Constitution on our side. Our revolutionary forefathers would be disgusted with what the Bush Administration has done--we've got that too, and we should use it.

Peace and Love in 2006.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 10:03pm | #

Being right about something doesn't give you "carte blanche" to be dismissive and insulting towards those that happen to disagree with you. People who have a different view over whether what is being done constitutes probable cause or not are not "crapping on the constitution" any more than people who oppose the Patriot Act are "siding with the terrorists."

I've got a party to go to, so I'll be brief.

1) Proper insults, when followed by something interesting, make people notice your argument. I have found that, quite often, people set in their thoughts won't listen to anything you say in any other way. I've screwed up and stupidly insulted the wrong people before, but I've learned from my mistakes and my instincts are pretty good now. Some people will only listen to what's said by someone that's stung them.

See my comment on December 31, 2005 03:00 PM. ...What was that guy that talkin' about?

2) The ultimate effect of much of the Patriot Act is debatable, I suppose, but the President's contempt for probable cause goes far beyond that in my book. The President's defenders have used the same sorts of arguments regarding cruel and unusual punishment, due process and other Constitutional concerns as well.

Did you see my reference above to the Constitution-as-Death-Pact meme? Is this not an accurate description of the arguments of my opponenets? Do they not believe that the Constitution is just an unworkable, death pact considering the nature of our enemies? If this isn't crapping on the Constitution, what is? Wouldn't they treat probable cause as toilet paper? ...so long as doing so--in their minds--makes us safer from terrorism?

Ruthless Dorothy | December 31, 2005, 10:03pm | #

"In a better world, anarchy would be better..."

Somewhere over the rainbow bluebirds sing...

chirp

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2005, 10:20pm | #

And again. You still think is about "root, root for the home team" then about trying to get our points across to people currently unreceptive.

To me, asking an originalist to explain why he believes what he believes in regards to the Constitution and why he then turns around and supports the President's behavior regarding due process seems an excellent strategy for getting my point across.

In regards to politeness, once again, I think one of the problems we have is that people think that bending my rights around however it pleases them, whether in regards to due process, probable cause or tax issues, is perfectly acceptable. People talk to me about how my taxes should be higher at dinner parties in restaurants. ...and expect me to smile at them afterward!

...It's shocking when they get a rebuke instead of a smile, but they leave without the illusion that we're all willing to go down with a please and a thank you. This is as it should be.

Akira MacKenzie | December 31, 2005, 10:46pm | #

Click on Stephen Macklin's name to see his troll confession of today and what he thinks of the people who post here.

I've read it, and Mr. Macklin should thank whatever mythological being he worships that he and I are seperated by time, distance, and the information superhighway...

...otherwise the right-wing pile of shit would be chewing his teeth.

Ruthless | December 31, 2005, 10:52pm | #

During the break there, we heard from cherished daughter, who lives in largely flooded downtown Napa. She is fine other than being sans elektirissily. She could barely hear us thanks to the spunky gentrifiers in the 'hood here defying anti-fireworks laws.
In three more hours, she will be doing same... and who knows what else.

Alles ist in gumuetlichen orden. Gutte nacht.
Froelichen neures Jahr.

Waterfall | December 31, 2005, 10:59pm | #

If I'm a mile from the waterfall, and I've just had my paddle torn from my hands, I can look at it from policestate's blithe perspective and say, "Hell, I'm a good mile from the falls! That's way different from being about to go over the falls."

Or I can look at it honestly and say, "I'm fucking going over the falls..."

Let's not let them yank the paddle from our hands, folks.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 31, 2005, 11:00pm | #

We have a lot of smart commenters here, but every once in a while someone links to this site and we get a bunch of propaganda victims stormin' the gates, but that's fun too.

You call them "propaganda victims", I call them the lowest common denominator that was able to figure out how a mouse functions.

kgsam | December 31, 2005, 11:32pm | #

"The Truth" Served Plain
That's pretty arrogant. Those who succumb to security hysteria are absolutely righteous. Hysteria makes no room for reason.

chris | January 1, 2006, 1:04am | #

policestate, I have it on good authority (by monitoring all the internet traffic entering the country) that you have one hell of a collection of german lesbian porn on your hard drive ties with Al Queda and if you don't contribute to the republican party (we estimate you can make a sizable donation since we're able to monitor your credit report and banking activity) we're going to lock you up at Guantanamo.

So do you see where this is going yet?

chris | January 1, 2006, 1:06am | #

damn html strike tag doesnt work

Eb | January 1, 2006, 3:08am | #

"I would much rather live as a free man under the highly improbable threat of another significant Al-Qaida attack than I would as a serf, spied on by an oppressive government that can jail me secretly, without charges. If the Patriot Act defines the term "patriot," then I am certainly not one."...

But Rodgers gets it. We get it. A lot of us get it. More people need to start saying it out loud, though.

There are worse things than another 9/11.


No, you don't get it. If you did, you would realize how ridiculous your statement is.

You don't even know what an oppressive government is. If you did, you wouldn't make such a silly statement.

No, you're not leading the charge of the brave rebellion. No matter how rousing you may have meant your infantile statement to be.

You should be grateful that you are so wrong. If you were right, you would be in jail (or dead) for your paranoid statement.

Maybe you should read just a little tiny bit about oppressive governments. You might find out how obnoxious it is to be such a titty baby about legitimate government tactics that have somehow become the news story of the day, compared to the suffering that millions have endured because they were unfortunate enough to actually experience what an oppressive government does to citizens every day of their damn lives.

Ideology must be empowering. Why else would people allow their world view to be so distorted by sticking by a narrow vision of reality. I used to consider myself as sympathetic to Libertarianism but as much as I enjoy Hit and Run, the teenboy paranoia is getting tedious.

Shem | January 1, 2006, 3:56am | #

policestate- Speaking as someone who's been hitting the "Don't insult people you want as your allies" meme for longer than I'd care to consider, I can see where you're coming from. But at the same time, it only works when there's some legitimate area for people to disagree on. I just don't see where that exists in this case. The law is already ridiculously stacked in favor of the Executive branch, and yet they didn't take advantage of this fact when they tapped phone lines. These actions are utterly baseless, and in this case I have a hard time getting too worked up about my ostensible allies being impolite to people who would support such infringements.

As for the people who are insisting that this isn't a big deal/it's insulting to victims of totalitarian societies, etc, I have to ask, can you point me to one place in history when this sort of thing happened and matters ended well? It's all well and good to insist that we can stop it whenever we want, but I can't think of a single place where experience has borne this out.

Eternally Vigilant | January 1, 2006, 5:18am | #

The thing I think that policestate and Eb don't get is that you don't have to be living in a police state to worry about the encroachment of one, you just need to recognize that one is forming in your midst.

With the powers Bush has been amassing since 9/11 (secret detention with torture, exemption from judicial and legislative oversight, ubiquitous civilian surveillance) there does present the very real possibility (it might be reasonable to say very real probability, given plenty of historical examples) that those powers will be used to amass yet more power which will further exempt this executive from oversight, review, or control.

Look back over history and ask yourself what percentage of executive power grabs ever "u-turn" and slide back up the slippery slope.

Take a look at the technology available today to enforce executive fiat.

The wrong time to worry about a police state is when you're already living in one.

Randolph Carter | January 1, 2006, 6:03am | #

jesu christo I just spent 2 hours arguing with othe people whether or not wiretaps without warrents are bad ideas - everyone at the party was pretty much down with the idea of warrentless searches - what's the best defense against "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear"? Taking these decisoins to their logical conclusions didn't work...

scandra | January 1, 2006, 6:06am | #

I read somewhere a long time ago that the US has intervened in the affairs of other countries scores of times since the end of the WW2. In the process, more than 20 million people have been killed. What is 3,000 American dead compared to the 20 million the US has indirectly killed in the last 60 years?

Randolph Carter | January 1, 2006, 6:14am | #

Scandra,
inconsequential statement... while it feelse... something... to beat ourselves up for past indiscretions, the 20 million figure is absolutely ridiculous. Where did you hear that? the Godwin Times? har har har YELL LIKE A PIRATE

joshua corning | January 1, 2006, 6:26am | #

Where is the thresh-hold at which the president is allowed to suspend civil liberties?

It is obviouse that when tanks enter our nation it ok to suspend but when terrorists blow up the towers and hit the pentagon it is not...so when is it time?

and how is that time determined?

and who determins when it is time?

all good questions and libertarians (at least on this board, including myself) have NO ANSWERS for.

Note: prediction for what Thoreau will say: tanks are not attacking and a friend of some guy who knows a terrorist maybe is being watched without a warrent.

great fucking great...tell me something I don't know.

I Don't Like Vaudeville | January 1, 2006, 6:38am | #

joshua,
Bad ventriloquism job with thoreau there.

Good job telling yourself something you already knew.

Precisely who are you adressing when you say, "tell me something I don't know?" Is it thoreau, or rather are you asking yourself to put more words in thoreau's mouth so you can disagree with them/with yourself?

Firefighters and Police | January 1, 2006, 6:50am | #

More nasty details of the administration's view of the duration of the War on Terror:

From:

http://www.sfgate.com
/cgi-bin/article.cgi
?file=/news/archive
/2003/10/25/national1257EDT0540.DTL
&type=printable

----------
Given the chance to talk to the defense secretary, one solider from the 101st Airborne Division asked what was on the minds of many: When will the worldwide fight against terrorism be over? "I mean, should I get my 3-year-old ready for air assault school?" the soldier asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during an Iraq tour last month.

"I wish I could give you a date, but I can't," Rumsfeld said. That would be like estimating when a town will no longer need firefighters or police, he told the soldier.

Privately, administration officials have said for months that they see the anti-terrorism fight as a decades-long struggle similar to the Cold War that dominated the second half of the 20th century.
----------

The answer is that it's forever, chumps.

For the same duration as the need for firefighters or police.

Is anyone else a bit reluctant to give Bush these powers for as long as we'll need firefighters and police?

joshua corning | January 1, 2006, 6:58am | #

I don't like vadville,

actually i was trying to get a response...last time i tried his reply was similar to the one i mimiced.

Qbryzan | January 1, 2006, 8:20am | #

Where is the thresh-hold at which the president is allowed to suspend civil liberties?

That is an excellent question, but it doesn't address the issue at hand. The president didn't "suspend civil liberties",