TW: These type dichotomies are why I call Bullshit on those who disclaim "big government" and parade around alleging some righteousness in the cause of "liberty". Many on the right are highly comfortable with certain forms of big government just not those which do not jive with their views of what is important. Security at all costs, equality not so much, equity not so much.
Another serious terrorist attack will result in our constitution being tossed aside like cheap pulp fiction, of this I have no doubt. It will hardly matter which party is in power although the Republicans would toss it with more fervor.
From Andrew Sullivan:
"Conor Friedersdorf tries to get conservatives to open their eyes:
'If I may address the skeptics on the right directly, it is penny wise and pound foolish to worry about creeping tyranny via government-run health care or gun control when we’re another terrorist attack away from popular support for an archipelago of secret prisons where anyone can be whisked away and tortured without any evidence against them. Look to Europe if you doubt whether government-run health care or black sites run by secret police are a more immediate threat to the liberty of innocents.
Do you think that I exaggerate?
Know that one of the Gitmo Three was arrested at age 17, held for some years without being charged, and scheduled for release at the time of his death due to the military’s conclusion that no evidence linked him to al Qaeda or the Taliban. We may never know exactly how he and his fellow detainees died: A conclusive, independent autopsy is impossible because their bodies were returned to their families with their throats missing.'
It is, in my view, simply indisputable that if a Democratic president had tried even an ounce of this, Mark Levin and the GOP would have demanded impeachment a long time ago. Which tells you a lot about what their real principles actually are: power, power and power.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/liberty-or-tyranny.html
Showing posts with label Civil Liberties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Liberties. Show all posts
Friday, January 22, 2010
Friday, December 4, 2009
SWAT's Up
TW: The interviewee in this piece is from Reason a hard-line libertarian magazine, I do not agree on many things with them but on matters of civil liberties our interests cross paths. I recall the SWAT TV show from thirty years ago when they were a novelty. Now they are ubiquitous both in number and use. I remain skeptical that our security is enhanced.
From Economist:
"DIA: You've written about the creeping militarisation of law enforcement in America. How has this trend manifested itself and what are the consequences for the quality of policing?
Mr Balko: The most obvious way it has manifested itself is in the explosion in the use of SWAT teams and similar paramilitary police units over the last 25 years. The criminologist Peter Kraska has surveyed their use over that time. He's found that the total number of SWAT-team deployments in the 1970s was a few hundred times per year, over the entire country. By the 1980s, it was a few thousand times per year. And by around 2005, Mr Kraska estimates around 50,000 times per year. The surge has been driven entirely by the drug war, with the vast majority of SWAT deployments being used to serve drug-related search warrants.
This has led to a militaristic mindset among America's police departments, beyond just SWAT teams. Driven by "war on crime" and "war on drugs" rhetoric set by political leaders, police officers have increasingly taken on the psyche of soldiers. There's a pervasive and troubling "us versus them" attitude in policing today. Policing has become more reactionary, more aggressive, and it's poisoning the relationship between the police and the communities they serve.
I should add that I don't think police officers themselves are to blame for this, nor, obviously, are all police officers guilty of it. These are problems spawned by 35 years or so of bad policies set by politicians. That's really where any reform would need to start."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/11/five_questions_for_radley_balk
From Economist:
"DIA: You've written about the creeping militarisation of law enforcement in America. How has this trend manifested itself and what are the consequences for the quality of policing?
Mr Balko: The most obvious way it has manifested itself is in the explosion in the use of SWAT teams and similar paramilitary police units over the last 25 years. The criminologist Peter Kraska has surveyed their use over that time. He's found that the total number of SWAT-team deployments in the 1970s was a few hundred times per year, over the entire country. By the 1980s, it was a few thousand times per year. And by around 2005, Mr Kraska estimates around 50,000 times per year. The surge has been driven entirely by the drug war, with the vast majority of SWAT deployments being used to serve drug-related search warrants.
This has led to a militaristic mindset among America's police departments, beyond just SWAT teams. Driven by "war on crime" and "war on drugs" rhetoric set by political leaders, police officers have increasingly taken on the psyche of soldiers. There's a pervasive and troubling "us versus them" attitude in policing today. Policing has become more reactionary, more aggressive, and it's poisoning the relationship between the police and the communities they serve.
I should add that I don't think police officers themselves are to blame for this, nor, obviously, are all police officers guilty of it. These are problems spawned by 35 years or so of bad policies set by politicians. That's really where any reform would need to start."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/11/five_questions_for_radley_balk
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Free Speech Or Opening Pandora's Box
TW: The SCOTUS heard arguments last week on a case about free speech and politic campaigning. It is one of those issues which create strange bedfellows with folks from the left and right joined together on both sides. On one hand, those supporting unfettered free speech and the corrsponding ability to spend in support of such speech. On the other hand, those eager to control at some level the ever increasing monetization of American politics with individuals and corporations spending billions on campaigns.
The progressive bloggery- Huffington, TPM etc. tended last week to react more in fear of the former but the issue is complex and not easily fit into a progressive or reactionary bucket. Can there be any controls on the ever growing spending on campaigns (and the ever coarsening of the discourse) without creating unreasonable abridgements of free speech rights.
From Economist
“HILLARY: THE MOVIE” is unwatchable. From the first frame, it presents a dreary caricature of Hillary Clinton as a power-crazed harpy with no redeeming qualities. She is cynical, manipulative, dishonest and ruthless—and so on for 90 excruciating minutes. Wasn’t there at least a dog she once omitted to kick, or a child whose lollipop she didn’t steal?
That said, “Hillary: the Movie” is no duller or more biased than much of what passes for journalism these days. And it is clearly political speech, which the constitution’s first amendment unambiguously protects. “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” it says. Not “thoughtful, balanced speech”; just “speech”. Yet the creators of the movie were forced to drop plans to distribute it via cable television for fear of stiff fines and long jail terms.
The reason is that Congress has in fact passed a number of laws that abridge the freedom of certain groups to say certain things, in certain ways and at certain times about—wait for it—politicians. Among these laws is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as McCain-Feingold after its senatorial sponsors. Among other things, this law bars corporations or unions from financing the broadcast of electioneering messages about candidates within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.
The Hillary movie was made by a conservative group called Citizens United, which wanted to release it during the Democratic primaries last year. The group calls its creation a documentary, which would be exempt from McCain-Feingold’s strictures. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruled it was the equivalent of an attack ad, and could therefore not be paid for with money from for-profit corporations. Citizens United is a not-for-profit group supported mostly by individual donations, but it has also received donations from private firms. It sued the FEC on free-speech grounds, and the case came before the Supreme Court earlier this year. Instead of deciding it on narrow grounds, the court took the unusual step of asking for it to be re-argued, to examine the constitutionality of a large part of America’s campaign-finance system. It heard arguments on September 9th.
The case for campaign-finance curbs goes something like this. Corporations have a lot of money, which could give them a lot of influence. So they should be barred not only from giving large amounts to candidates but also from paying to disseminate views that might affect an election. If they wish to raise money to express political views around election time, they must form a “political action committee” (PAC), jump through regulatory hoops and raise only limited amounts of money from each donor. The counter-argument is that this system (which is much more complicated than described) does not work. It has not kept money out of politics: the amount spent on presidential elections has grown relentlessly. And the complexity of campaign-finance law makes it hard even for well-meaning candidates to be sure they are not breaking it. John McCain, who ought to know better, was accused of an arcane but serious violation last year.
Big companies can hire lawyers to help their PACs find their way through the maze, but the little guys get lost. And some states have tried to use campaign-finance laws to stifle debate. In Washington state, prosecutors claimed that a friendly discussion of an anti-tax campaign on a radio show was a political donation that the campaigners should have declared. In Colorado, a group of homeowners protesting a plan to incorporate their neighbourhood into a nearby town were sued for displaying yard signs without registering as a PAC. Free-speech advocates won these cases, but they needed lawyers to do so.
Another effect of campaign-finance laws is to protect incumbents. That, suggested Justice Antonin Scalia on September 9th, may well have been their purpose. Incumbents have no trouble getting on the evening news. Their challengers are often unknown, and making it harder for them to raise money increases the odds they will stay that way. Outsiders can sometimes break in, as Barack Obama spectacularly showed. But the big donations that jump-started the insurgency of Eugene McCarthy, the anti-war candidate who prompted Lyndon Johnson not to seek re-election in 1968, would be illegal today.
Newspapers and television stations are exempt from the strictures of McCain-Feingold, so they can spend vast sums supporting or hounding political candidates without fear of reprisal. Some media firms, such as the New York Times, see no problem with denying other corporations the same right. But five of the nine Supreme Court justices seem to find it troubling. If a politician promises to ban tobacco, asked Chief Justice John Roberts this week, is it fair to ban tobacco firms from responding?
Free-speech enthusiasts fear that unless the first amendment is jealously guarded, it will be abused. And they have reasons to do so. Earlier this year the federal government claimed the power to ban books that support or oppose a named candidate, if those books are financed by a corporation, as most books are, and published too close to an election. That could include anything from Michael Moore’s rantings to John Kerry’s ponderous autobiography. This week, the solicitor-general appeared to retreat from this outrageous claim, saying that the FEC almost certainly would not ban books. But what about pamphlets? And why should something so fundamental depend on a bureaucrat’s whim? With bloggers and YouTube continually blurring the line between advocacy and journalism, it is growing ever harder to regulate corporate speech coherently. The Court may well tell politicians to stop trying."
The progressive bloggery- Huffington, TPM etc. tended last week to react more in fear of the former but the issue is complex and not easily fit into a progressive or reactionary bucket. Can there be any controls on the ever growing spending on campaigns (and the ever coarsening of the discourse) without creating unreasonable abridgements of free speech rights.
From Economist
“HILLARY: THE MOVIE” is unwatchable. From the first frame, it presents a dreary caricature of Hillary Clinton as a power-crazed harpy with no redeeming qualities. She is cynical, manipulative, dishonest and ruthless—and so on for 90 excruciating minutes. Wasn’t there at least a dog she once omitted to kick, or a child whose lollipop she didn’t steal?
That said, “Hillary: the Movie” is no duller or more biased than much of what passes for journalism these days. And it is clearly political speech, which the constitution’s first amendment unambiguously protects. “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” it says. Not “thoughtful, balanced speech”; just “speech”. Yet the creators of the movie were forced to drop plans to distribute it via cable television for fear of stiff fines and long jail terms.
The reason is that Congress has in fact passed a number of laws that abridge the freedom of certain groups to say certain things, in certain ways and at certain times about—wait for it—politicians. Among these laws is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as McCain-Feingold after its senatorial sponsors. Among other things, this law bars corporations or unions from financing the broadcast of electioneering messages about candidates within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.
The Hillary movie was made by a conservative group called Citizens United, which wanted to release it during the Democratic primaries last year. The group calls its creation a documentary, which would be exempt from McCain-Feingold’s strictures. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruled it was the equivalent of an attack ad, and could therefore not be paid for with money from for-profit corporations. Citizens United is a not-for-profit group supported mostly by individual donations, but it has also received donations from private firms. It sued the FEC on free-speech grounds, and the case came before the Supreme Court earlier this year. Instead of deciding it on narrow grounds, the court took the unusual step of asking for it to be re-argued, to examine the constitutionality of a large part of America’s campaign-finance system. It heard arguments on September 9th.
The case for campaign-finance curbs goes something like this. Corporations have a lot of money, which could give them a lot of influence. So they should be barred not only from giving large amounts to candidates but also from paying to disseminate views that might affect an election. If they wish to raise money to express political views around election time, they must form a “political action committee” (PAC), jump through regulatory hoops and raise only limited amounts of money from each donor. The counter-argument is that this system (which is much more complicated than described) does not work. It has not kept money out of politics: the amount spent on presidential elections has grown relentlessly. And the complexity of campaign-finance law makes it hard even for well-meaning candidates to be sure they are not breaking it. John McCain, who ought to know better, was accused of an arcane but serious violation last year.
Big companies can hire lawyers to help their PACs find their way through the maze, but the little guys get lost. And some states have tried to use campaign-finance laws to stifle debate. In Washington state, prosecutors claimed that a friendly discussion of an anti-tax campaign on a radio show was a political donation that the campaigners should have declared. In Colorado, a group of homeowners protesting a plan to incorporate their neighbourhood into a nearby town were sued for displaying yard signs without registering as a PAC. Free-speech advocates won these cases, but they needed lawyers to do so.
Another effect of campaign-finance laws is to protect incumbents. That, suggested Justice Antonin Scalia on September 9th, may well have been their purpose. Incumbents have no trouble getting on the evening news. Their challengers are often unknown, and making it harder for them to raise money increases the odds they will stay that way. Outsiders can sometimes break in, as Barack Obama spectacularly showed. But the big donations that jump-started the insurgency of Eugene McCarthy, the anti-war candidate who prompted Lyndon Johnson not to seek re-election in 1968, would be illegal today.
Newspapers and television stations are exempt from the strictures of McCain-Feingold, so they can spend vast sums supporting or hounding political candidates without fear of reprisal. Some media firms, such as the New York Times, see no problem with denying other corporations the same right. But five of the nine Supreme Court justices seem to find it troubling. If a politician promises to ban tobacco, asked Chief Justice John Roberts this week, is it fair to ban tobacco firms from responding?
Free-speech enthusiasts fear that unless the first amendment is jealously guarded, it will be abused. And they have reasons to do so. Earlier this year the federal government claimed the power to ban books that support or oppose a named candidate, if those books are financed by a corporation, as most books are, and published too close to an election. That could include anything from Michael Moore’s rantings to John Kerry’s ponderous autobiography. This week, the solicitor-general appeared to retreat from this outrageous claim, saying that the FEC almost certainly would not ban books. But what about pamphlets? And why should something so fundamental depend on a bureaucrat’s whim? With bloggers and YouTube continually blurring the line between advocacy and journalism, it is growing ever harder to regulate corporate speech coherently. The Court may well tell politicians to stop trying."
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Now They Know How Islamic Groups Feel
TW: I tend to get very libertarian quickly when it comes to law enforcement and civil liberties. I feel many of the "anti-terrorist" measures taken since 9/11 are overly intrusive, paranoid and sacrificial of too much liberty in the name of security. Conservatives (the non-libertarian slanted ones at least) typically have been highly supportive though of the intrusive measures as they tend toward the security end of the "liberty/security" scale.
For this reason, the irony is considerable as conservatives get uptight about domestic security agencies probing "right-wing" groups of various ilks here in the U.S. It is uncomfortable when your "own" (understanding the vast majority of conservatives are not "extremists") are the targets. Perhaps now they will have some empathy for Islamic types of whom the vast majority of members are not extremists either.
From Washington Monthly:
"WHEN IDEOLOGY TRUMPS LAW ENFORCEMENT.... Newsweek had an item the other day...
'In February, the Missouri Information Analysis Center, one of several "fusion" centers created after 9/11 to share intelligence among local, state and federal agencies, issued a "strategic report" warning about a resurgence of the "modern militia movement." Last week, on the same day that white supremacist James von Brunn allegedly killed a guard at Washington's Holocaust Memorial Museum, Missouri's police chief informed legislators that the fusion center had suspended production of such reports. Why? Outcry from conservative activists, who felt they were being tarred too. [...]
They may talk about it less in public now, but law-enforcement and intel officials tell NEWSWEEK they're quietly scrutinizing threats from the far right just as carefully as those from Islamic extremists.'
So...Law enforcement officials decided, on purpose, to stop preparing reports on potentially dangerous radicals, because conservative activists said scrutiny of extremists made them feel put upon? Conservative activists whine about all kinds of things; shouldn't law enforcement officials ignore them and focus on real threats?"
For this reason, the irony is considerable as conservatives get uptight about domestic security agencies probing "right-wing" groups of various ilks here in the U.S. It is uncomfortable when your "own" (understanding the vast majority of conservatives are not "extremists") are the targets. Perhaps now they will have some empathy for Islamic types of whom the vast majority of members are not extremists either.
From Washington Monthly:
"WHEN IDEOLOGY TRUMPS LAW ENFORCEMENT.... Newsweek had an item the other day...
'In February, the Missouri Information Analysis Center, one of several "fusion" centers created after 9/11 to share intelligence among local, state and federal agencies, issued a "strategic report" warning about a resurgence of the "modern militia movement." Last week, on the same day that white supremacist James von Brunn allegedly killed a guard at Washington's Holocaust Memorial Museum, Missouri's police chief informed legislators that the fusion center had suspended production of such reports. Why? Outcry from conservative activists, who felt they were being tarred too. [...]
They may talk about it less in public now, but law-enforcement and intel officials tell NEWSWEEK they're quietly scrutinizing threats from the far right just as carefully as those from Islamic extremists.'
So...Law enforcement officials decided, on purpose, to stop preparing reports on potentially dangerous radicals, because conservative activists said scrutiny of extremists made them feel put upon? Conservative activists whine about all kinds of things; shouldn't law enforcement officials ignore them and focus on real threats?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)