RoR: Forum

Phil,
Partial or ordinary? Linear or non-linear? Be clear, man!; these things matter.

Post 21

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 5:40pm

For that matter, why Botticelli - why not Caravaggio?

Post 22

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 6:29pm

Hey Phil,

1. I'm glad you're satisfied with the administrations respect for the checks and balances that exist.

2. Do I need to explain -again- about how both sides cannot be trusted? Jesus!!!

Ethan

Post 23

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 6:40pm

I'm also curious about something. If the spying was legal under FISA, why is the U.S. Attorney General and others noting that the bill authorizing the use of force passed after 9/11 gave Bush the authority. Why claim that when FISA was gave supposed justification? Either those making this claim are very ignorant, or they think that they've done something that is outside of FISA, thus trashing the defense mounted in your liked article Phil. Food for thought anyways. As I noted, both sides are liars.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 12/20, 6:43pm)

Post 24

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 6:44pm

Phil,

The best source I know of is National Review Online ...

I must disagree. National Review is literally peppered with insane, leftist, NeoCon bull$#!^ -- as I've proven here:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/1221.shtml#1

In sum then, the guys who signed PNAC -- need to grow a PNIS, the damn Machiavello-NeoCon-Straussians. But I won't just trash National Review as insanely tribalist, I'll offer an alternative: One of the best places to get right opinions is right here on RoR, because our opinions get challenged and refined -- sometimes almost in realtime.

Meant with vigor,
Ed

Post 25

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 7:20pm

Absolutely Ed!

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 7:51pm

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

Post 27

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:30am

Ethan,
I don't know whether your criticism applies here. There's no need to trust Robbins when he cites specific paragraphs of statutes as reference. Unless you want to argue that the law should not be written in the way it is. In which case, you might want to read it and comment. But saying you don't trust either side implies that Robbins is lying or slanting the story in order to reach the conclusion he wants. Risky thing to do then to cite (in many places) specific laws authorizing the actions. And the Drudge report is a red herring here. The wiretaps, as I read the story -- from both sides -- were targeted at known Al Qaeda contacts.

Perhaps you think it's not ok to wiretap them without a court order achieved through some -- inevitably, lengthy -- process. That's a reasonable position -- for which you should provide an argument. And one that goes beyond merely citing the Fourth Amendment and saying you 'don't trust either side'.

Post 28

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:02am

Hi Jeff,

My view (perhaps in error) is that Robbins is citing the law as it exists in FISA, but members of the administration are claiming that the authorization came from the force authorization approved by Congress after 9/11. As I mentioned in post 23 above, it seems odd that they'd do this if they truly had the authority under existing laws.

Don't misunderstand me ( or I'm not clear enough) when I criticize this action. I recognize that terrorists represent a threat and must be fought. That often means that the outhorities must act quickly and should do so. My concern is that the Administration will use this type of situation to the detriment of our freedom. I also recognize clearly that the Democrats would do exactly the same if they were in charge.

Phil is correct that we must not take single sources or general liberal mouthpiece sources at their word when they start screaming about something the evil other side is doing. The hyperbole of the sound-bites these days is ridiculous. I find that his quoted source isn't the refutation that he seemed to think it is, given my comments about FISA above. The Republican's are no friends of Objectivists, but of course neither are the Dems.

Does that clarify my position at all?

Ethan

Post 29

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 1:01pm

Ethan,
I share your concern over the potential increase in intrusion into individual liberty and I think your post is reasonable.Our differences are likely to be only of degree. I'm inclined to cut the Administration, for all it's mistakes and immoral behavior in too many areas, more slack here than some others would. I worry less about them listening to my phone conversations than I do about what will happen if the terrorists' conversations are inadequately monitored. I recognize the serious principles at issue, of course. But a reasonable man can differ with me here.

Post 30

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:08pm

Jim H-N said on another thread: "Whether it's fighting communism or fighting terrorism, I think it is important that we take civil liberties seriously. We tortured a German citizen who happened to be innocent, we've held U.S. citizens without a lawyer or due process for several years. I think these things are serious and I don't think the current White House takes them seriously. "

I think these are very legitimate worries captured in the idea that governments expand in wartime. And it wouldn't surprise me if government is both inactive and too active in measures it takes to protect us, or if the Patriot Act and laws and agencies simultaneously do too *much* and too *little* to find, fight, follow, defeat terrorists domestically.

Nonetheless, there is a different standard in the holding of wartime combatants and terrorists. You can't have bail, for example. There is a whole set of issues which have been extensively discussed outside of Objectivist circles and lots of good points made by the neo-cons and others, which is why one needs to to places where the discussions are held by experts in surveillance, intelligence, etc...not dismiss the entire website I recommended out of hand without distinguishing between types of topics and writers among thousands of essays and hundreds of viewpoints, as another poster did, in a sort of objectivist provincialism.

Phil

Post 31

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:12pm

"I'm inclined to cut the Administration, for all it's mistakes and immoral behavior in too many areas, more slack here than some others would. I worry less about them listening to my phone conversations than I do about what will happen if the terrorists' conversations are inadequately monitored." [Jeff]

I agree. There is a long range danger of government encroachment gradually accelerating...and of tyranny decades down the road. But there is an *immediate* danger of a nuclear or biological Pearl Harbor. You have to fight the devil inside your house first, while being aware of another devil entering the neighborhood.

Post 32

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:24pm

Phil said:

which is why one needs to to places where the discussions are held by experts in surveillance, intelligence, etc...not dismiss the entire website I recommended out of hand without distinguishing between types of topics and writers among thousands of essays and hundreds of viewpoints, as another poster did, in a sort of objectivist provincialism.

I tried to find out who you were reffering to about disregarding sites out of hand and I either missed the post someone made, or you are reffering to me. I certainly agree that we need to take in information from all sources, and didn't intend to sound like I was dismissing the site you linked to. For example, I tend to listen to lots of radio during my three hours of daily driving. I browse ones that have various leanings such as conservative, neo-con, liberal, and even fundamentalist Christian. I would never want to discourage someone from listening to what others are saying. That information is vital to existing in the world today. So, for the record, I'm not trying to say that people should ignore these sites and sources, simply take them with the necessary helping of salt.

Ethan

Post 33

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 12:18am

The FISA Court is a secret court established with all the safeguards needed to preserve any legitimately needed powers of the executive. Its members are previously confirmed federal judges, and all of its current members were appointed to the FISA bench by Chief Justice Rehnquist - hardly a liberal of any kind. The law even allows emergency wiretaps without prior warrant, as long as the wiretap is reviewed by the court, in secret, within 30 days afterward. It is, and was designed to be, a means of bringing what is still completely unconstrained wiretap authority in practice under the absolute minimum of judicial review that Congress found necessary to insure that the Executive works within the law.

By deliberately failing to comply with the 30-day FISA secret court review requirement, W cannot have accomplished anything that could not have been accomplished equally well with FISA review. It was a trial baloon for the claim that Executive authority is in principle not constrained by law. And that claim cannot be reconciled with Constitutional government.

Post 34

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 2:43pm

> reviewed by the court, in secret, within 30 days afterward [Adam]

Reviewed by or have received notice of? As in this provision: "send a copy of the surveillance authorization under seal to the so-called FISA Court as established in section 1803".

Adam, I am sometimes uncomfortable with simplifications of a complex factual matter where no evidence (or links) are provided and where two sides are presenting wildly different interpretations of what actually took place. I'm not simply going to (and no one should) simply take your word that this --"deliberately failing to comply with the 30-day FISA secret court review requirement" -- is what happened. Or that this (further) bit of psychological interpretation of motives -- " It was a trial baloon for the claim that Executive authority is in principle not constrained by law" -- has any greater objectivity than any claims people make about the bad motives of various Objectivist groups or factions.

For example, I am not suggesting the Robbins piece I referred to is the last word or probative. But that it is an indication that one may need to explore further: Sometimes things are more complex. Sometimes one does not yet have sufficient evidence. Sometimes one is not in a position to know X without hearing from both sides. I often find your posts and insights brilliant. But I sometimes find you make a claim to certainty on a range of issues too quickly or too glibly. And I get that feel regarding this. It doesn't fit my reading of the Bush Administration. Too oversimplified.

Be careful, in a commendable zeal for civil liberties, of swallowing the leftist, New York Times "line" too quickly.

Phil
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 12/22, 2:58pm)

Post 35

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 6:46pm

Phil,

... not dismiss the entire website I recommended out of hand without distinguishing between types of topics and writers among thousands of essays and hundreds of viewpoints, as another poster did ...

Christ man, call me by name, why don't you!? You want some distinguishing (besides that insanely tribalistic article)? Fine. Frum & Pearle (who wrote The Right Man -- a book which overlooks that offices, not men, are what ought to rule countries). These guys, apparently, prefer to do our thinking for us. It is obvious from what they write (that "Right Man" book, especially) that they aren't interested in the kind of America (ie. the original kind) that I am interested in. They are leftist neocons, period.

... in a sort of objectivist provincialism.

Fine. Call me an objectivist -- I don't care. Call me someone who doesn't (ever) compromise on basic moral principles. I can live with that.

Another Poster

Post 36

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 7:30am