On Chris Hayes now, where were Libertarians during all the Stop And Frisk years?

[uponit7771]

REALLY good question.

Also, a good portion of the countries population would NEVER EVER be extended the benefit of support of being able to run to another country to escape Americans imperfect justice system.

Would Stop and Frisk still be going on today if the "libertarians" put 1/10th of the energy they're putting into screaming about what the the agencies COULD (because there's been no solid credible proof of systematic spying) be doing!?!?!

At the heart of the surveillance issue I think it's a good question to ask if the agencies power and abilities too broad relative to what they had over 30 years ago. I don't think the best way of going about it is wingerish reflexive hatred of the government especially seeing there's a way to change things ... albeit ANOTHER item on the to do list.


Your take?


tia

EDIT TO ADD: Can anyone point out a Protect The 4th protest against S&F that was lead by libertarians?

Regards

[Fawke Em]

1. I wish I could pay attention, but for some reason, I find David Sirota

particularly handsome tonight and I keep having to fan myself.

[dairydog91]

2. Did you look?

I found articles on Cato.org dating back to 2000. There's a plethora of stuff on Reason. Those are the only the libertarian websites I know of.

[uponit7771]

3. Yes I looked, there was no level of constant outrage at Stop and Frisk like there is at what

...the agencies COULD.. COULD be doing

NONE

[X_Digger]

4. *nod* This shit has always been on their radar.

It's one of the few sane issues they get right.

[uponit7771]

13. Like the agencies surveillance!?!?!? NO, not at all...not even a tenth if that. They don't like blac

...black people and brown people they like even less.

Pauls support over racist, why would they have S&F on their radar?!

[X_Digger]

51. They hate the police period, pretty much.

So yes, they've always railed against any perceived or real infringement of the fourth amendment.

Heck, I was hearing about the same kind of crap before there was an internet, on BBSs, etc.

[LearningCurve]

69. Here you go

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gov-johnson-on-nypds-stop-and-frisk

[uponit7771]

98. One person not liking S&F = current noise level aimed at surveillance!?!?!? really?!

[pnwmom]

65. Yeah? If the victims are black? nt

[LearningCurve]

68. Yes

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gov-johnson-on-nypds-stop-and-frisk

[malaise]

5. Excellent discussion

Truth will out

[burnodo]

6. were you trying to defend Libertarians?

[uponit7771]

14. ...by asking why weren't they making NOISE when blacks and browns were being affected by overt wrong

...and racially motivated survellience?

regards

[burnodo]

20. well then, why don't Democrats take up the cause?

[uponit7771]

23. They haven't?! REALLY?! It wasn't civil liberterians who sued the city of new york....

[burnodo]

26. civil libertarians?

are you coming around?

[uponit7771]

30. or any libertarians in that case, it was dems...libertarians don't like black people (see Pauls)

[burnodo]

31. oy my god

back to the same ol shit, eh?

I'm sorry, but what DEMOCRAT ever spoke out against stop and frisk? And I'm not talking about some New Yorker. I'm talking about congressman, senators, Eric Holder, Barack Obama. Why weren't they upset about it? What are they doing for their paychecks? Why didn't they do something about it?

[burnodo]

39. HELLO??

Is this thing on?? *TAP* *TAP* *TAP*

[uponit7771]

53. facts matter no? tia

[burnodo]

55. they do!

where are yours?

[MNBrewer]

37. So... Democrats aren't civil libertarians.

...?

[uponit7771]

59. civil? yes.......libertarian?! nope

[MNBrewer]

61. Lol!

[deurbano]

85. Yes it was.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/8/new_york_police_ends_practice_of

The New York Civil Liberties Union has been front and center with this issue.

<<In a settlement with the New York Civil Liberties Union, the New York City Police Department agreed to stop storing the names of people who were arrested or issued a summons after being stopped and frisked — and later cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. For years, police have used the database to target New Yorkers for criminal investigations, even though it includes people who were victims of unjustified police stops. Since 2002, the police department has conducted more than five million stops and frisks. The vast majority of those stopped have been black and Latino. According to the police department’s own reports, nearly nine out of 10 New Yorkers stopped and frisked have been innocent.>>


More:
<<In March 2012, the NYCLU, along with LatinoJustice PRLDEF and The Bronx Defenders, filed a federal class-action lawsuit challenging the NYPD’s Operation Clean Halls program, a part of the department’s stop-and-frisk program that allows police officers to patrol thousands of private apartment buildings across New York City. The Clean Halls program violates the rights of residents of those buildings and their guests – largely black and Latino New Yorkers. The NYCLU created videos documenting the detrimental consequences that Operation Clean Halls has on the everyday lives of impacted New Yorkers. The case is currently in the discovery phase of litigation.>>

http://www.nyclu.org/content/nyclu-campaign

[Comrade Grumpy]

100. Uh, yeah, it was civil libertarians who sued the city of New York.

The ACLU of New York and the Center for Constitutional Rights, if I recall correctly.

[Puzzledtraveller]

94. C'mon burnodo, you know dems are ALWAYS on the right side of ALL issues.

[burnodo]

103. Yes they are

and that is the directive I will adhere to... All hail Barack Obama! All bow to the Democratic ascendancy!

[cthulu2016]

7. Civil libertarians have been all over stop-and-frisk since day one.

If you were a civil libertarian you would know that.

But you are not a civil-libertarian, thus do not know that.

Is your concern "The Libertarians"? If so, who cares? They are assholes.

[uponit7771]

15. Like the agencies surveillance!?!?!? NO, not at all...not even a tenth if that. They dont like black

...people

[cthulu2016]

58. Do you know what a civil-libertarian even is?

Is it your contention that civil-libertarians do not like black people?

This will come as a great shock to the ACLU.

[MNBrewer]

74. uponit has no idea what a civil libertarian is

as made abundantly clear in their posts.

[Puzzledtraveller]

95. They are an NSA apologist so no surprise they didn't know.

[mwrguy]

8. They were busy trying to defund Head Start and gut the civil rights act

[uponit7771]

62. Yeap

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Where were the people concerned with long sentences

when we turned into a warehousing culture?

60 years to a 21 year old for an armed robbery is just as absurd and outrageous as any other long sentence we're so concerned about today. That such nonsense was meted out to the brown and/or poor drops it off radar.

[onehandle]

10. Looking at their guns in their basements while jacking off? nt

[uponit7771]

16. LOL!! I love this place

[Recursion]

11. Surely you don't expect libertarians to defend poor, dark-skinned people's rights

Let's be realistic here

Now, civil libertarians have (many of them) been kvetching about stop and frisk for years, but ordinary people didn't care like they do about surveillance.

[LearningCurve]

70. And yet

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gov-johnson-on-nypds-stop-and-frisk

[Demo_Chris]

12. Answer....

You can criticize Libertarians for a lot of things if you like, but consistency is generally not one of them. Like many "fringe" groups (and unlike most members of mainstream parties), their positions remain consistent regardless of who is in power. They are issue rather than party driven. So why weren't Libertarians more outspoken about Stop and Frisk?

Stop And Frisk, while it has been going on apparently forever, has only recently come to national attention -- and I hesitate to even say that much, as I imagine the overwhelming majority of Americans still would have no idea what it is. Further, it's a local rather than national issue. Libertarians, as a rule (and party), are more concerned with Federal overreach and policy. In this they are like both Republicans and Democrats. Which is not to say that a program like Stop and Frisk, when it came to their attention, would go unremarked -- but a complaint of this kind is like criticizing a Duck hunter for not noticing a problem with the fish.

[uponit7771]

17. Yeah, ... yeah, it is one of them... there were NO protect the 4th protest with S&F

...I'd like to see reports of one

[JI7]

18. Stop and Frisk is usually done to black , latinos and other darker skinned people,

arabs/muslims have been spied on for years after 9/11. but they were usually dark and muslim.

[uponit7771]

19. +1, Hayes asked a good question...this is another why are they screaming now questions

...in regards to the agencies.

[Blue_Tires]

93. +1

[JI7]

21. on this other site one wingnut piece of shit was complaining about NSA and police state and other

shit but at the same time wanted to know why professor gates did not do as the police demanded. why didn't trayvon just do as zimmermman wanted...

[uponit7771]

22. Yeap, the hypocrocy and the implications of privlege are gob smacking on this issue....

...as if having a computer raises people to the level that there should be a protest... but live in the hood?!

Nope...liberterians are no where to be found

[JI7]

28. the president himself got crap including on DU for bringing up how men of certain backgrounds

deal with such abuses during the professor gates incident.

and you got people trying to compare collection of phone data as being comparable to stop and frisk.that's BS also.

this is why the whole thing looks like a fucking joke to me.

there is no real effort to make changes either. it's just some big martyr act with them. the bs about snowden being comparable to people like king, gandhi, rosa parks.

[Cha]

81. It's called..

"Overkill".. they overkilled it.

"..and you got people trying to compare collection of phone data as being comparable to stop and frisk.that's BS also."

Hyperbolic hype.

[Wilms]

24. Therefore, the NSA spying on us is OK?

You've spammed the hell out of DU with a pile of your specious arguments on this issue.

Take a dose of this and get back to us in a few days. K?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_logic

[uponit7771]

27. IF there was solid credible proof of systematic spying on all Americans heck no! THere's not though

...but there's solid proof of the 4th amendment being broken with S&F but libertarians were fairly quite relative to the agency surveillance

[Wilms]

34. It's a 1st/4th Amendment issue. Get it?

It's not about party or an Obama popularity contest.

COLLEGE logic. Not high school bullshit drama.

Work on it. It'll calm you down.

[jeff47]

36. You know, if you're going to base your attack on intelligence

you should actually demonstrate you've read the post you are attacking.

[Wilms]

64. The post? How about the OP, and its point?

Which is pretty much the point UP has been making for a while now on numerous threads. And it's not a good one.

There are a number of posters that feel as though the revelations about the NSA are for targeting Obama, rather than questioning what the NSA is doing. And that strikes me as regrettable. Very.

[jeff47]

101. Well, that depends if you've actually read the documents

or if you're just following the coverage. The coverage has gone well beyond what's actually in the documents.

For example, the coverage has asserted targeting US persons by the Obama administration. That's not backed up by the documents. They show only 1 ongoing program regarding US persons, and that's the phone metadata program. Which the 1979 SCOTUS turned into "not spying".

Another example is the recent WSJ story claiming the NSA has the capacity to spy on 75% of US Internet communications. Capacity. As in bandwidth and other limitations. The coverage immediately turned that into "the NSA is spying on 75% of US Internet communications".

But almost every single news source is claiming the Obama-run NSA is spying on US persons even though the documents don't back that up. Kinda odd, huh?

rather than questioning what the NSA is doing

And just what is the NSA doing, right now?

Do we believe Snowden's documents, or the statements he and Greenwald and lots of others are making that don't have anything backing them up?

[Wilms]

102. We really don't know what the NSA is doing...do we?

Wyden doesn't. And that's not OK. Is he "attacking" Obama? I didn't get that idea at all.

Here's an example:

GRAYSON: It's possible - one of my colleagues asked the NSA point blank will you give me a copy of my own record and the NSA said no, we won't. They didn't say no we don't have one. They said no we won't. So that's possible.

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/scribble/5695/93da53ee074e5184d8aff848c183c523fd8865a0/

But really, this subthread began as a result of the OP's assertion that Liberterians aren't on the fore-front and taking to the streets over Stop and Frisk. And I find found that a specious argument in support of sticking our collective heads in the sand. Did I misinterpret the OP's comment...or the numerous similarly argued points the poster makes? I could care less about the Liberterian take on this. Grayson's concern, as outlined above, would be plenty enough. How about you?

[MNBrewer]

38. Where's the solid credible proof that Stop and Frisk is affecting all Americans?

To use your own criterion.

[uponit7771]

45. At the same place the agencies surveillance of non cell phone non internet users. See ...

.... how that works?

S&F affects all Americans just like it data surveillance affects all Americans unless a case can be made that EVERYONE has a cell phone and EVERYONE uses the internet

regards

[MNBrewer]

47. "S&F" is a NYC thing, isn't it?

[uponit7771]

56. No, S&F is NY implementation of "stop that person if suspected of a crime" it's not illegal it just

...the way the NYPD has gone about it is about as overtly racist as possible...

Nationwide racial profiling is a offshoot of S&F but people of color get harrased by it overwhelmingly compared to whites.

[mick063]

25. Honestly

I'm tired of the Libertarian shit.

We all know that Rand Paul is an idiot.

What a waste of time. Scolding other political parties when the Democratic Party needs so much fixing itself.

[uponit7771]

29. There's be a steady stream of libertarian > dems on DU, I'm calling BS on their crap...

...because it's pointed at government as if all of gov isn't workable given the right people (someone on the left)

I don't see their level of anger when it comes to the "others" civil liberties

[mick063]

33. Yes

There are people that confuse the idiots claiming they are Libertarians, running with the Republican crowd, with people that believe in true civil liberty and progressive ideals.

Are you one of them?

I have yet to read a post here that supports "stop and frisk". Not one.

[uponit7771]

44. Of course not, I've yet to see the number of OPs from libertarians on the S&F issue like I do

...the surveillance issue.... not at all, not even close.

[mick063]

52. Perhaps because stop and frisk is a political issue largely within New York City.

Although it is an issue in other parts of the nation as well, it is not the defining issue in the center of a local political campaign in other US cities.


The surveillance issue is world wide. We have seen the United States, Hong Kong, China, most of South America, Russia, Iceland, and much of Europe come into play.

Perhaps surveillance is a bigger issue because it is a bigger issue. It affects more people.

[uponit7771]

54. It's not, been widespread of a while .. every major urban area it's just that NY has been racist

...jerks with it because they like being racist jerks.

Other PDs don't like being racist jerks so it's kinda hard to get them to cooperate.

S&F is legal when there's a real suspicion ... with blacks and browns......... NATIONWIDE... the bar for suspicion is incredibly low...

[MNBrewer]

40. Rand Paul is a Republican with some libertarian leanings

He is not a Libertarian.

[uponit7771]

46. Yeah, yeah he is... a racist one but a libertarian none of the less

[MNBrewer]

48. You are ignorant of what a libertarian is, then, if that's your opinion.

[uponit7771]

57. ummmm, no...there are racist democrats too... just because they're democrat doesn't mean

...they CAN'T be racist.

Same here with S&F, when blacks and browns were mostly affected libertarians were mostly quite... RELATIVE to now.

Regards

[MNBrewer]

60. I didn't say that libertarians can't be racists.

However, Rand Paul is no libertarian. For example, his views regarding legal equality with regard to sexual orientation run counter to the libertarian viewpoint. He's fully a Republican, with some libertarian leanings.

[LearningCurve]

77. I concur sir

Many of the people most associated in peoples' minds as Libertarians, are Republicans in Libertarians clothing.

[madinmaryland]

32. "Libertarians" were happy with S&F since it targeted brown people. nt

[LearningCurve]

66. Untrue

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gov-johnson-on-nypds-stop-and-frisk

[limpyhobbler]

35. I actually think you have a good point there.

Who has been yelling about stop and frisk for several years -

The ACLU, Cornel West, Democratic Socialists of America, Occupy Wall Street, and the Revolutionary Communist Party.


The right wing libertarians (like the Libertarian Party and such) have agreed in principle but they have not been vocal allies in the cause.


Credit for bringing this issue to public attention belongs to the left, the far left, and the far-far left.

[burnodo]

41. Don't you know?

Cornel West is a secretly black-hating black! Or he was dissed by Obama. Something believable I'm sure.

[limpyhobbler]

87. Yeah Dr. West not too popular with the Obama-right-or-wrong crowd either

He's pretty much on their shit list with Greenwald, Manning, and the rest. It's a long shit list.

[LearningCurve]

71. Not Gary Johnson's fault no one felt like covering it

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gov-johnson-on-nypds-stop-and-frisk

[limpyhobbler]

76. Well he wasn't out there organizing protests against it.

His party was on the right side of the issue, that's true.

But the OP was right I think, in that right-wing Libertarians have not put much energy behind ending stop-and-frisk.


Go on youtube and search back for related protests and such, and see who was organizing them. The bulk of the resistance has been from the affected communities, and their political allies. Of which the Libertarian party is not one.

[nomorenomore08]

42. Since most "libertarians" are actually conservatives and conservatives tend toward racism

their relative silence on this issue isn't surprising.

[uponit7771]

49. +1, This is what I'm seeing along with a reflexive dislike of the government that is increased ..

...because of the surveillance stories

[LearningCurve]

72. There hasn't been silence

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gov-johnson-on-nypds-stop-and-frisk

[nomorenomore08]

73. I said relative - not complete - silence. Good for Gary Johnson that he opposes this stuff. n/t

[LearningCurve]

78. Fair enough.

[philly_bob]

43. "No solid credible proof of systematic spying"?

I thought there was.

[uponit7771]

50. Nope, just someone pushing a book saying there is and some internal audits from the NSA

...and another agency saying they screwed up on some roaming calls from foreigners in America.

I've yet to see systematic spying ....

Also, the internet is a public traffic way for data just like the interstate is for cars... it just makes it easier to look at where data is for the NSA et al than a car but no one has proven that the agencies are grepping (doing string searches inside the data) or analzing the data's content... just like a camera can't go into your car.

The agencies abilities are broad now and the 76 ruling on privacy for phone use (there were still human switchboards then) is being kinda stretched right now but systematic spying...

No one has shown solid proof, not even the jerks who started this wildfire fake scandal

[mick063]

63. Collecting and storing massive amounts of data, which can be retrieved at leisure, is spying.

Use your own terms to define spying. Not the NSA's.

[LearningCurve]

67. Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson certainly did address it

Here's the link.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gov-johnson-on-nypds-stop-and-frisk

[Demo_Chris]

75. Stop it. That's just facts man. nt

[great white snark]

80. Meh, his "liberties" include wanting statewide vouchers for schools.

Might have changed parties but still very Republican IMHO.

[Cha]

83. Good for libertarian Gary Johnson.. too bad Assange thinks Rand Paul

"is America's only hope".

"Julian Assange Backs Ron and Rand Paul"

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/julian-assange-backs-ron-and-rand-paul/

He always did seem rather dumb to me.

[LearningCurve]

84. The Pauls are not Libertarians

More like a Republican/Libertarian hybrid.

[Cha]

86. Yeah, they're hybrids alright and Assange supports them.

[Demo_Chris]

90. Ron is basically Libertarian, Rand is just a regular Republican. nt

[LearningCurve]

91. Rand seems to be inching closer

In some ways.

[Demo_Chris]

92. Perhaps so, but he has a problem there... the social conserative Teaparty

They are basically the only motivated voters the GOP has left, they are who put Rand in office in the first place, and they are definately not Libertarian. The only thing even vaguely Libertarian about them is that they claim to want to reduce spending. Of course, they really just want lower spending on social programs -- when it comes to everything else they are fine with it.

But beyond this candyfloss there is nothing Libertarian about the Teaparty, or really any party if you want to get down to it. Neither party is interested in ending these wars and closing up our overseas bases and empire. Neither party wants to end corporate welfare. Neither party wants to end Domestic spying. Neither party wants to end the drug wars. Neither party wants to address the civil rights attrocity that is the black incarceration rate. Neither party REALLY wants to grant blanket amnesty. And I could go on. Libertarians are neither Democrats or Republicans, they are Libertarians, and the chasm between them and either major party is far greater than the sheet of tissue separating Democrats and Republicans.

This is not to say that I am Libertarian. I'm not. I agree with them on many issues, but disagree on a host of others.

[uponit7771]

96. Another one off example, my litmus is the noise level not just tacit support of one man

[cherokeeprogressive]

79. Your own rec to this thread was the fifth one.

Were you afraid it wasn't going to make it to the Greatest Page?

[uponit7771]

97. What greatest page?

[Union Scribe]

82. Where were you?

Have you been talking about this? Or are you just doing it now as a way to not-at-all-subtly gripe about people talking about another issue you that you don't like being talked about?

[uponit7771]

99. Yes I have and other injustices about our systems not SUPPOSED justices claimed by some asshole

...and an idiot who runs off to a country of suppression to excapt supporession

[JoeyT]

88. Which libertarians?

I know at least a few have been outspoken against it: Radley Balko is the first one to come to mind. Largely because very little of what he writes has to do with economic issues and primarily focuses on how screwy the justice system is.

Edited to swap Radley Balko's names into the proper order. I always get them backward.

[joshcryer]

89. Stop and frisk is a perfectly legitimate private police force policy.

Right-libertarians would support it wholeheartedly.

[Warren DeMontague]

104. I dunno, where has the Democratic Party "leadership" been during the drug war?

Absent, or in the case of Joe "RAVE Act" Biden, actively enabling it to be made worse.

[uponit7771]

105. Speaking out against it loudly....dem leadership is not only folk in office. Still didn't hear...

...libertarians during the beginning of that "war"

[Warren DeMontague]

106. really. I'm not talking about us, the base- I'm talking about the LEADERS.

Sadly the drug war is one area -like LGBT marriage equality, until relatively recently at least- where the people want one thing and the conventional wisdom beltway yahoos are invariably several steps behind.



Unfortunately the people in charge of our party are still enthusiastically sending SWAT teams in to arrest cancer grannies for pot smoking, even as a majority of Americans think pot prohibition is a massive waste of time.

As for "libertarians"- there is the Libertarian party (a gaggle of a-holes, to be sure) and libertarianism the philosophical outlook, particularly juxtaposed against the sort of asinine authoritarianism that can rationalize everything from wholesale gov't spying to interference in reproductive decisions to the drug war to outlawing consenting adult gay sex. They are oft-conflated, but not the same. Still, social or left-libertarians have been against the drug war from the word "go".