General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo when/why did it become necessary to defend the Bill of Rights on (Deleted) ....
Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2012, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)
against government surveillance, spying and disruption of protests and protesters?
When the George W. Bush administration attacked our civil liberties and rights not a single (Deleted) defended or tried to justify government spying and other operations directed against critics of government policies.
So what has changed?
Why am I getting the feeling that I and other defenders of our civil liberties and human rights are becoming a vanishing breed on (Deleted)?
Why are the obvious and deepening attacks on our civil liberties being trivialized or in some cases actually justified and defended?
Material deleted by the author of the post. BBI
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)
I am with you
pinto
(106,886 posts)a pretty vague accusation. So I'm clueless. (aside) This seems a Meta discussion, suggest you open it there. 
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You never bothered to explain what situation was so terrible. So for the moment I'm going with the assumption that it was about the government surveillance of OWS that was talked about yesterday. If you meant another situation, it would be wise to at least mention what you're upset about.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)The Bill of Rights protects anyone who says things publicly that is critical of government policies.
For example posters on "public" message boards like DU, public demonstrations, public statements made to people in public, "public"blogs and all other overt "public" comments that are critical of government policies, etc.,
I find government surveillance of and spying on such protected free speech and assembly by the FBI, Fatherland Security, the CIA, NSA or any other government agency objectionable under any administration, not just the Bush government.
I don't there is really much to debate or disagree with here among firm and hardcore supporters of the Bill of Rights.
randome
(34,845 posts)Neo-Nazis. White supremacists. Cultists. All sorts of groups most of us want the government to monitor from time to time.
It's called law enforcement. Not everything connected with it is evil. Sometimes it is. But not always.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)The KKK has a history of terrorism.
No one here is defending the KKK or other right-wing terrorist outfits.
However, the thousands of progressive organizations and individuals under active government surveillance are not terrorists.
And reactionary legislation like the Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act can easily be used against progressive and other non-violent organizations organizations.
Do you not understand the difference?
randome
(34,845 posts)Unless they look into whether they are or not. Do you expect them to just magically 'receive' the information by some form of 'Good Vibes' telepathy?
You keep barking up this tree about DHS looking at public web sites regarding OWS and trying to make it out to be something sinister.
Absent evidence to the contrary, it does not appear to be so.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)They don't need to spy on all progressive protest organizations and protesters in order to uncover such "terrorist plots" and "violent" attempts to overthrow the government! Or maybe they just want to stop a few ultra-left nut cases from breaking a few store windows.
That's certainly a good enough reason to justify massive government surveillance of progressives!
Progressives are not the likely source of terrorist plots.
We know the old argument used to justify broad government surveillance of progressive movements ..... the government has to hunt down terrorists, anarchists, communist plotters, radical subversives and other political troublemakers in order to protect the national security of the people and nation.
Of course, that is just an excuse used by government spy agencies to justify their violations of our civil liberties and rights.
In other words, its just a lot of horse shit!
randome
(34,845 posts)...reading posts by people, listening to what they are saying and...wait, that's what DHS was doing.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)And why do you think they would be doing that and would you not have a problem with such government spying?
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)actions only to "uncover" them at an advantageous time.
The CIA has never been used inside the USA right?
Please. Anyone who assumes the Police State is acting in the PEOPLE's best interest is either naive or sock puppet.
randome
(34,845 posts)And I guess you have proof that Homeland Security is infiltrating and agitating. Probably not. That's just what you WANT to believe.
Does government do evil sometimes? Yes. Is that your point?
I'd rather not do without law enforcement of some kind. I suspect most people would agree with that sentiment.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)does opposing illegal unconstitutional actions become supporting anarchy?
People who think solely in such Black and White extremes can be treated with drugs these days.
randome
(34,845 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)THE ORIGINS OF THE OVERCLASS
by Steve Kangas
[link:http://www.american-buddha.com/illum.originsofoverclass.htm|
randome
(34,845 posts)You don't have to try very hard. All I'm saying is that law enforcement performs important functions that we do not want to do without.
Such as monitoring organizations like Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, cultists, etc. The idea that DHS might have read some publicly available info on OWS is hardly a reason to panic and decry the collapse of our nation.
As I've said before, yes, the government does evil sometimes. But the other side of that coin is that we depend on law enforcement to keep us safe.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)
progressoid
(49,991 posts)OWS is in the same category as Neo-Nazis and needs to be monitored by Homeland Security. Tax money well spent.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The people in an OWS demonstration are in public. They're standing outside, in a public space, with no expectation of privacy.
Whether a message board is public or not depends on the board - one that is readable by anyone is public. One that restricts access is not.
If some random person can overhear your conversation using their own ears and without trespassing, then it's perfectly legal for the government to record that conversation....just as it's perfectly legal for that random person to record that conversation. If some random person can read your post on a message board, then it's perfectly legal for the government to save that post.
Imagine if this was not the case: Family goes on vacation, and dad videotapes the kids playing on the beach. That would require getting permission from everyone else on the beach if recording in public was not legal.
So no, there's no problem with your public statements being recorded. If you're willing to say it in public, you're willing to say it to the government.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Do you think the government ought to increase or lesson its surveillance of progressive organizations and individuals or doesn't it matter at all to you?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you are in public, anyone can surveil you. Government or not. The bill of rights says nothing about it.
If you want to claim otherwise, you're welcome to put forward an argument. But you're going to have to specify things like which amendment covers it, and which rulings created the precedent you claim.
As for progressive organizations, it doesn't matter as long as they're in public. Heck, the whole point of protests is to get noticed. Kinda silly to claim you want the media to cover an event, but terrible for the government to do the same.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)I'll be reading your posts from now on in order to gain an understanding of our Constitution and Bill of Right and ignore what the ACLU and other less learned organizations have to see on privacy and civil liberty issues.
So you don't have a problem with the government placing you and DU under surveillance because the feds only have noble intentions and would never misuse such information.
Of course. They are guardians of our Bill of Rights!
The FBI, CIA and other agencies don't just sit around and do nothing. They have frequently acted to weaken and sometimes destroy progressive or radical organizations and mass movements based on the information gathered via their secret surveillance techniques.
We have no reason to believe they are no longer engaged in such disruptive type activity, particularly now that the gloves have been taken off the so-called "intelligence community".
I think you need to seriously study the history of their spying operations. You seem to be honestly naive on this matter.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So, go right ahead and link where the ACLU says surveillance of people in public is illegal.
No, you are lying. About as badly as a Republican, since my posts are still up there to read.
I don't have a problem with the government placing anyone under surveillance when they are in public. Because they are in public. I can't fathom how you fail to understand that distinction.
When you walk down the street, anyone can see what you are wearing. Including the government. Anyone can read any signs you are carrying. Including the government. Anyone can overhear your conversation. Including the government. What no one can do, including the government, is search a bag you are carrying without your permission or a warrant. Nor can they surveil you in private without a warrant.
Surveillance in public: Legal.
Surveillance in private without a warrant: Not legal.
Weakening and destroying an organization without a warrant: Not legal.
The fact that I know the first one is true has no bearing on the second two.
And you are so desperate for a villain you aren't reading what I'm typing.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)because such government repression is now "legal"?
"I don't have a problem with the government placing anyone under surveillance when they are in public."
You don't.
I do.
And so do all other defenders of our Bill of Rights.
What do you think police states and repressive regimes do with information they collect from placing progressive activists and organizations under 24/7 surveillance?
If you honestly don't know you are naive indeed!
And letting government bureaucrats with a police state mentality in the FBI, NSA, CIA, DHS, etc., get their foot in the door with surveillance activities you approve can only pave the way for repression and massive violations of our rights.
Since the Patriot Act and military authorization act permit the rounding up and imprisonment of citizens without due process I assume you support such actions because they are now 'legal"!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)How very, very sad for you. I'm sorry your search for a villian has required you to completely ignore what I write, and instead hurl all sorts of insults about what I didn't write.
Passing a law doesn't make it constitutional.
You don't.
I do.
You can have all the problems you'd like. Doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.
I'm still waiting for those ACLU links. I'm sure you just forgot to include them.
Why, they're spying on people in private. Golly, if only you bothered to read my posts, you'd actually know how I feel about that. Instead, you're continuing to lie about me.
Little problem with your theory:
Surveillance of people in public has been constitutional since 1787.
Abuses of surveillance have occurred, when people were not in public. If you are going to claim otherwise, please post a link to an abuse that came from only public surveillance.
Do you always lie about people so much?
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . which tends to have a chilling effect on political speech.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)everyone, including the government, can watch.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Do you know how the government has monitored your activities and is using the information collected jeff47?
Do you even care to know?
And what they are doing with the information gained from surveillance is an even bigger secret!
Of course, one can trust the government spy agencies to not abuse the information they collect about us and our activities.
They are workng hard, 24/7, to defend and protect the Constitution and Bill of Rights of course.
Trust big brother.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You know, the one where you claimed the ACLU proved me wrong but you failed to include such proof? I'm still waiting for your reply there.
Perhaps someday you'll understand the difference between public and private....of course that might cut down on the false outrage.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Take the 2nd amendment for example - always open to interpretation 
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It is not limited to DU either, I see it in the party leadership and among many x republicans that now call themselves "moderate Democrats".
The problem I have with these Moderate Democrats is that they are neither moderate, nor Democrats (as is evidenced by their support for continued Bush policies of Constitutional destruction as well as their free trade and trickle down economic preferences)
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)have sold out democratic principles for money and power. They have been ought our or scared into participating in the
Police State controlled by the elites for their benefit to the detriment of the 99%.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You said it much better than I can at this point.
DURec for the OP
and for Post#5 this thread.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
ItNerd4life
(1,067 posts)Even if it's the same damn thing.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . If the very same encroachments upon civil liberties that have occurred since President Obama took office had taken place while Bush was till in office, everybody on this board would be screaming bloody murder. When President Obama does it, it seems like at least half of the folks here simply shrug their shoulders.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)Hey, we voted for change remember? 
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Have you always hated the letter D? Or is it really that you love the letter R!
Some are never satisfied, others realize that "the D" is more important and pragmatic than issues or any of that Constitution stuff.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Are becoming a thing of the past. I wonder what the America of ten years from now will look like.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Why am I getting the feeling that I and other defenders of our civil liberties and human rights are becoming a vanishing breed on Democratic Underground? "
...that's hard to say. People who claim to support the Bill of Rights have been fooled by Ron Paul. So there is that.
"Ron Paul hates govt intervention, likes mandatory vaginal ultrasound probes"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161152
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"That would make sense if there were actually DUers supporting Ron Paul. But there aren't."
...constantly posting article by Ron Paul supporters is questionable: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002369100
Here's a criticism of Ron Paul: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002367459 (ignored).
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)That was the point of the OP.
And I have no idea what point you are trying to make by linking to your OP. Are you really trying to suggest that if people don't pay attention to your Ron Paul posts that they support Ron Paul?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What I see is a post that shows that there is opposition for NDAA across the political spectrum"
...right, there is. The mostly Republican Virginia legislature voted against indefinite detention: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002369495
are you saying that supporters of this administration are as gullible as Ron Paul supporters? Or that both this administration and Ron Paul have double standards?
Or both?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Or both?
...no. Ron Paul supporters and anti-Obama types tend to all rely on bogus spin. I mean, some people believe that Obama is planning on arresting Americans for nothing because they saw a Ron Paul video.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)some people think this is about Ron Paul!
Tell me where the Ron Paul reference is here: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/29-1
or here: http://gothamist.com/2011/11/16/justice_dept_official_raids_of_occu.php
or here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/exclusive-homeland-security-kept-tabs-on-occupy-wall-street-20120228
ProSense
(116,464 posts)or here: http://gothamist.com/2011/11/16/justice_dept_official_raids_of_occu.php
or here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/exclusive-homeland-security-kept-tabs-on-occupy-wall-street-20120228
...did I post those links? Who said "this is about Ron Paul"?
It is for some people, but not for everyone.
the OP make reference to a Ron Paul video? No. Yet you brought it up. I just thought I'd continue with your deductive fallacy theme.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Did you have anything r.e. the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or are you stuck on Ron Paul?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Did you have anything r.e. the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or are you stuck on Ron Paul?
...I know what the question is. It's about self-righteousness and claiming that people who you're debating don't care about the Bill of Rights. I mean, look at the OP: DUers who don't agree with me hate the Bill of Rights.
People post facts, opinions, misleading articles and spin. Not everything posted here is a fact. When someone disagrees with an particular opinion or spin, it's not the same as not caring about the Bill of Rights. In fact, some of the hypocrisy negates the self-rigtheousness.
I also know other things about trends in posting, and some of that is about Ron Paul (mostly anti-Obama).
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Here's the real purpose. Like clockwork.
The faux freakout over Ron Paul
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002154246
progressoid
(49,991 posts)Funny how some faux freakout posts show up on that thread about faux freakouts. Good grief.
inna
(8,809 posts)(not an easy task, mind you, since you had some fierce competition here!)
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)And once a Democrat leaves office, and a GOPer ties it, then it will become bad again. 
Pretty simple if you ask me....
ProSense
(116,464 posts)for a slogan: Preserve the Bill of Rights, elect a Republican.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Pretty simple, yes, and pretty sad and one of the reasons why we are fast losing our rights. It's clear that those who benefit from us losing our rights know they can depend on this phenomenon known as 'situational ethics'.
Until people's priniciples on all sides remain intact regardless of who is in power, we will continue to lose rights. But for those who benefit from the loss of the rights of the people, it is a perfect system.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)for articles critical of Democrats?
Sid
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)thank you.
intheflow
(28,477 posts)Blue Dog/Moderate Dems = Corporatist Dems.
Spying on citizens is an extension of the military/industrial/prison complex = just good corporate profiteering!
Constitution = Quaint/outdated impractical idealism in the face of the profits to be made.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)the mostly Republican Virginia legislature voted against indefinite detention: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002369495
Woo hoo!
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Are you saying that since some Republicans are against indefinite detention, that's reason enough for us to be for it?
That would be a pretty lame rationale for supporting the NDAA.
I support the Bill of Rights all the time, no matter who is in office. If Republicans occasionally see the light and choose to join in this support, all the better. But I know that the minute an "R" gets elected President, their concern will go out the window.
I would (and do) hope that Democratic support for the Bill of Rights is a little more constant and consistent though...
k&r
-app
inna
(8,809 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)nt
randome
(34,845 posts)Not a great way to win hearts and minds.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)It's like, what is this, Classical Athens? The Intergalactic Imperial Congress of the United Federation of Galaxies? Star Wars?
Silliness. 
People here need to get some lovin, IMHO.
randome
(34,845 posts)And don't always see the sarcasm that's evident in others' posts.
Either way, it's all good.
closeupready
(29,503 posts) Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Holding the government accountable is soooo 1776.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)To prevent that I've deleted references that might be considerable objectionable by some hosts and posters.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Hosts received an alert on this post, because someone thought it should be in Help & Meta for 'whining about DU'. Your "edits" notwithstanding, there is an ongoing discussion in the Hosts Forum about whether the OP fits the SOP for General Discussion.
There is no discussion about whether your post contains objectionable content, only whether you put it in the right place.
Sid
blue neen
(12,322 posts)I'm confused...just clicked on DU a couple of minutes ago.
Spike89
(1,569 posts)Surveillence in itself is not covered in the bill of rights. Unreasonable search, yup. Invasion of privacy however is a much more grey area. You only have privacy in certain circumstances and certain places. There is a big, I'd say huge, difference between surveillance and disruption of protests and protesters. It is the difference between something as common as a police stakeout and something as wrong as police planting evidence. It is the difference between a "legal" sting operation and entrapment.
Spying is a loaded word and isn't in the bill of rights. Depending on how you want to define it, spying could include a police officer spying on a stretch of road for speeders. Of course, it also includes illegal wiretaps, intrusive listening devices (which is a grey area in itself), and even actions such as covert breaking and entering to gather data.
Just as the Bill of Rights isn't truly protected by those who insist it protects the rights of citizens to own and bear nuclear arms, insisting that the document prevents all government surveillence does nothing but harm our rights.
I am not saying we don't defend the rights we have and continually work to build and expand those rights. I'm just saying that those rights need to be understood fully or we can't stand up for them. Of course the government can read my anti-government screed--the bill of rights doesn't protect me from scrutiny. If the government takes action to stop me from posting that screed, well that is another thing.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)PufPuf23
(8,791 posts)
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)they ever in danger of going out of business for lack of affronts to the Bill of Rights.
However, for some people it's all about partisan politics. They don't care about issues, they care about one party versus the other as if it was some sort of demented sporting teams competition. So if the other parties in power, their violation of civil liberties is a great way to attack them and make us look good, but when they're party's in power it's time to sit down and shut up. After all, this was never about civil liberties.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)
kickysnana
(3,908 posts)...Some activists lament how few anti-authoritarians there appear to be in the United States. One reason could be that many natural anti-authoritarians are now psychopathologized and medicated before they achieve political consciousness of society’s most oppressive authorities
-snip-
Many people with severe anxiety and/or depression are also anti-authoritarians. Often a major pain of their lives that fuels their anxiety and/or depression is fear that their contempt for illegitimate authorities will cause them to be financially and socially marginalized; but they fear that compliance with such illegitimate authorities will cause them existential death.
========================
Why do you think that they wanted all children evaluated in elementary school for psychiatric/behavioral problems but then cut funding for treatment and do not aggressively make insurance companies pay for it?. They want the information, they do not want to help the kids.