TOLD YOU SO!!!

Towards the end of Pres. Bush's first term there was much discussion concerning Presidential Powers. Many liberals were terrified that as a nation, we were ceding too much authority to the President. The Patriot Act and FISA were debated non-stop. Those of us on the left who argued that too many civil liberties were being encroached upon in the name of "security" were laughed at. We were stupid they said, at that time, to worry about such things. After all; if you weren't doing anything wrong, you had nothing to worry about. America had been attacked and we would stop at nothing to keep Americans safe.

Now many years later, those on the Right are suddenly concerned about these same civil liberties that the Left was warning about. Back then, it was no big deal that the FBI was infiltrating anti-war meetings to spy on the Left. Now it is a VERY BIG deal that the FBI spied on the Tea Parties. On four separate occasions during the Bush administration, legislation was offered to Congress to end term limits for the President. (A very bad idea but nobody had any objections to it.) But now that same bill (which is still stuck in committee) is a plot to make President Obama dictator for life. A report from Homeland Security (requested by the Bush Administration) warns of the dangers of domestic terrorism from Right Wing Extremists. Suddenly, the idea that "Big Brother's" watching you seems Orwellian and has nothing to do with keeping the country safe from terrorist acts but is a way to confiscate our guns.

Back then, I used to say, "Don't give President Bush any authority that you would be uncomfortable with a President Hillary Clinton having!" Now I just chuckle to myself and think, "I told you so!" as I listen to the Right scream about President Obama taking over the government and turning our country into a dictatorship that endangers their Constitutional rights!

And he could you know. Because both Democrats and Republicans gave him the means to do it way back then by voting for the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act lists the following provisions that many Americans feel infringe on civil liberties:

· INFORMATION SHARING: Allows information gained from a criminal investigation to be shared with intelligence agencies and other government departments. Sounds harmless but it allows the government to establish massive data bases on citizens who are not the target of criminal investigations.

· ROVING WIRETAPS: Allows one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices. (I.E. Phone, cell phone, e-mail, blackberry, etc.) Many feared that the language of the act was so vague that it would lead to privacy violations on people that came into casual contact with the subject.

· ACCESS TO RECORDS: Allows almost unlimited access to business records in foreign intelligence operations. These records can include credit card records, lists of library books you have checked out, etc.

· "SNEAK & PEEK WARRANTS: These allow a suspect's home or office to be searched by the government without immediate notification. Critics of this provision argue that it is so vague that it could be used for minor crimes as well as major intelligence investigations.

· MATERIAL SUPPORT: This expanded the ban on giving assistance to terrorists to include "expert advice or assistance". The Left has always maintained that this makes "guilt by association" way too easy.

So how does this affect "Joe the Plumber" out in the "Real America"? Let's take a hypothetical example.

Joe likes collecting guns. So Joe goes to a gun show where he purchases a weapon from a dealer. He strikes up a conversation with the dealer, who seems really nice and very well informed on politics. He and the dealer exchange e-mail addresses and the dealer promises to send him some information on any new weapons he receives.

Over the next few months, Joe & the dealer exchange e-mails and phone calls. Joe even purchases a couple more weapons from the dealer. The dealer recommends some books that Joe might enjoy on politics and Survivalism. He also asks Joe for advice on a variety of subjects.

Now, unbeknownst to Joe, the dealer is also the Grand High Poobah for the Grand High Order of White Supremacists! They are secretly plotting to blow up a federal building because they are convinced that President Obama is actually a Kenyan and therefore his taxes are illegal. They are convinced that as "true Americans" it is their duty to keep America from turning Socialist.

The government has discovered this plot and they are now using provisions of the Patriot Act to look into all of the dealer's business and personal contacts. (They can do this because according to the Patriot Act, the President has the power to determine if you are an "enemy combatant", you don't have to be a foreigner to be so labeled.) During this investigation Joe the Plumber's contact with the gun dealer is discovered. And he now comes under investigation.

During a search of his home and computer, they discover a file on his computer that serves as a personal diary where he wonders if the US wouldn't be better off without Obama. He wasn't serious, just a little drunk when he typed it. Never published it or even wanted to show it to anyone. But now he is under suspicion.

E-mails show that he advised the gun dealer when asked specific questions about how to get a plumbing license. A check of credit card records show Joe has made several "payments" to the dealer. Unfortunately the dealer keeps bad books and has no records of originally owning the guns Joe bought. So it gives the appearance of Joe donating money to "the cause". Joe is guilty of offering "material support" (under the new legal definition) to the terrorists.

So Joe is picked up as an enemy combatant and "questioned" about his ties to the Grand High Order of White Supremacists. Now he has none, but they don't believe him. So they decide that he needs "extreme interrogation techniques" to make him reveal what they are certain he must know. (But don't worry....waterboarding isn't really torture!)

Now do I believe this will really happen? Of course not! But if I was as suspicious of President Obama as many on the Right are....I would be seriously rethinking the Patriot Act right now. And I am smart enough to know that in 2012 or 2016 the next President may scare me even more than President Obama scares the Right.

You see how this works. What was once heralded as legislation that would save us all from Muslim terrorists can also be used to persecute YOU for beliefs that differ from the current President. It is essential to our system of checks and balances that we give no President a power that we would not be comfortable with all presidents having.

So my question to Conservatives now is....Do you still support the Patriot Act? (Don't worry, if you're not doing anything wrong they won't bother you!)

I hope you keep in mind the next time you are worrying about how President Obama is going to come and get you....we gave him legal authority to do it. All in the name of keeping America safe!

And just in case you think my hypothetical story is really far fetched, I remind you to research the case of Steve Kurtz.

CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

In December of 2005, New York Times Washington Bureau Chief Phillip Taubman met with several members of Congress to discuss an upcoming story in his paper on Bush's Warrantless Wiretapping Program. Among this group was Congresswoman Nancy Harmon(D) who at the time was urging the NYT to kill the story. This Contitutionally questionable program was vital to our National Security interests she argued.

This week it was alleged that Congresswoman Harmon was caught in a NSA wiretap agreeing to intervene in a crimininal investigation of AIPAC officials. At the other end of the phone was an Isreali agent. Ironic isn't it that the defender of an unconstitutional government eavesdropping program gets caught by a wiretap.

Now, Congresswoman Harmon says, "I support, if necessary, surveillance of people in order to prevent attacks against us. But ... surveillance has to be done consistent with our laws and the Constitution. ... I want to know, by the way, if the wiretaps were legal."

She also stated, "Let's see who else was wiretapped. I mean lots of members of Congress talk to advocacy organizations. My phone is ringing off the hook in my office from worried members who are asking whether I think it could have happened to them. I think this is an abuse of power."

She wanted warrantless wiretaps....be careful what you wish for!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



On October 21, 2001 President George Bush signed into law the Patriot Act. A response to 9/11, this statute was passed by wide margins in both the House and Senate. While many Americans on the left feared it sacrificed too many civil liberties, Democrats saw it as political suicide to vote against the bill. Republicans saw it as the ONLY way to save our country from foreign terrorists. There was much rejoicing on Fox News when it passed.

On April 15, 2009 Homeland Security issued a report that has sent the Conservative Right over the edge. It details concerns that during an Obama Presidency right wing extremists could recruit returning military personnel to commit acts of domestic terrorism. To hear the blogosphere tell it, if you are Christian, pro-life, own guns or believe in small government: storm troopers from Obama will arrive at your doorstep to make you disappear into a remote prison where you will be tortured to discover who you are working with.

The sad part of this is that while I don't think President Obama would abuse his power in such a way, legally it COULD happen. The Patriot Act gives the Government the right to detain without habeas corpus ANY suspected terrorists. And the definition of terrorist under the bill includes domestic terrorism. So technically it could happen just the way the Right fears.

All because they got the terrorism protection they wanted....be careful what you wish for!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the Bush Presidency there was a great deal of discussion concerning the powers of the presidency. I used to tell my conservative friends, "Never give President Bush power that you would be hesitant for President Hillary Clinton to also have." Now a great many people on both the Right and the Left are looking at how we have conducted our country's business. And many are not happy with what they see. The Right SHOULD fear the Patriot Act. It gives a President unbelievable power for both protection and for dictatorship. Just because you consider one president to be responsible enough for such power, gives no guarantee that the next will be as responsible.

Democrats need to keep in mind that legislation is like a blade that can cut both ways. As they write new legislation, they need to remember...BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!

WHY I SUPPORT OBAMA: THE CONSTITUTION

When I was in grade school it was required that every student memorize the Preamble to the Constitution. In middle school we were required to read the entire document...test on Monday. We were taught the three branches of government and how they were to be a system of "checks & balances" on each other. And in high school, we discussed the implications of that document in a class called Comparative Political Systems taught by a man who took great pride in his nickname..."BETTER DEAD THAN RED" CHARLIE. This was during the Reagan years and the end of the Cold War, it was a class that left an impression.

"Charlie" is dead now. And as conservative as he was, I can't help but think that he would be horrified to see what has happened to his favorite document during the past 8 years. Because the greatest casualty to 9/11 has been the Constitution! Under the guise of "homeland security", President Bush has used the attack on the Twin Towers to justify the gutting of the most impressive document of government written since the Magna Carta.

It can now be stated of America that under the leadership of President Bush, we have legalized the following acts that are considered by many to be unconstitutional:

* The government can imprison ANY AMERICAN whom the government has determined to be an "enemy of America". There is no need for a warrant.
* Suspension of Habeas Corpus. The right of an individual to petition the court for release from incarceration. This is the right to a trial. You can't simply be held indefinitely without a court appearance.
* While Congress has passed laws during the Bush Administration prohibiting torture, the President has issued a "signing statement" allowing it under his own interpretation of the law but in violation of the Constitution.
* Up until the passing of the most recent FISA Bill, President Bush authorized warrantless domestic wiretapping of American citizens.

The argument offered by the administration to justify these acts consists of the establishment of the never ending War on Terror. Then the President claims the additional powers offered to him by the Constitution in times of war and national emergency. The problem with this is that it has become a very open ended commitment on the part of the President. If the war never ends....you don't have to give up the extra power you wield.

President Bush & Vice President Cheney have long felt that the Executive Branch was stripped of it's power following Watergate. They have used the excuse of 9/11 to take power that Nixon never dreamed of.

Please don't misunderstand, I am aware that we face many dangers in today's world. But I fear anything that disrupts the delicate balance established by our founding fathers between the duty of the Executive Branch to execute the laws and the oversite obligation of the other branches.

These changes can be as dangerous in the long run as the threat of terrorism is in the short term. It sounds good to say that the President won't be bothered with liberal courts and evidence when terrorists stalk our streets to kill us. But in a few years, we could find that the "terrorists" are no longer Muslim but something much closer to home. You see the Patriot Act doesn't discriminate between citizen and non-citizen. So the next time it's used to arrest an "enemy of America" it might be you! And then you have no right to a trial or even to see the evidence presented against you.

This may sound silly, but if you have been called traitor and un-American as often as I have by bloggers, you get a little nervous when a candidate for vice-president starts talking about the "REAL AMERICA". I often argued in 2005 that you should never give President Bush power that you would not want a President Hillary Clinton to have.

I don't mind wiretapping of citizens. I do mind when it is done without a court order. I know I should trust the government to act responsibly, but as we learned last week...it often doesn't. We now know that countless American service men were listened in on while they called home. And instead of catching terrorists, we established a military intelligence 900 number. Military Intelligence was listening to phone sex between soldiers and the partners left at home. Worse, they were passing the BEST calls on to others to enjoy! Please explain to me how this is either making me safer or is protecting my constitutional rights.

Earlier this year, Sen. Obama showed that he understood the tightrope that must be walked between keeping the country safe and protecting the rights of its citizens. When the FISA bill was first presented, he worked to ensure that it required a court order be obtained for any wire tap. FISA was a very hot button issue for the liberal side of the Democratic party. He upset many of them when he voted for the FISA bill because he felt the need for safety outweighed the minor problems of the bill once oversight was established. In this, he showed a clearer understanding of the true intent of the Constitution than our current president has.

As a Constitutional Law professor for one of the best law schools in the US, Senator Obama offers our best hope for restoring the mindset of government to one that believes in the importance of the Constitution. He understands that it is our Constitution that makes America different from the rest of the world. We have seen this recently when the Supreme Court overruled a ban on handguns within a municipality. Sen. Obama disagreed with their ruling, but pointed out that while he didn't like it, once the Supreme Court makes a ruling....that's the law. How nice that he accepted it when he didn't get his way. Refreshing after the last eight years.

The Constitution is the single most important legal document in the history of our country. Sen. Obama is the candidate most inclined to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America (and not just the parts that he likes!)