FreThink

Glenn Greenwald, in a Salon.com opinion piece, provides a refutation of the points in the previous Time article. While he doesn’t challenge the underlying premise that the U.S. government is acting in ways detrimental to and incompatible with our Constitution, he does question the conclusion Time reached, that Americans just don’t care.

No matter how corrupt and sloppy the establishment press becomes, they always find a way to go lower. Time Magazine has just published what it purports to be a news article by Massimo Calabresi claiming that “nobody cares” about the countless abuses of spying powers by the Bush administration; that “Americans are ready to trade diminished privacy, and protection from search and seizure, in exchange for the promise of increased protection of their physical security”; and that the case against unchecked government surveillance powers “hasn’t convinced the people.” Not a single fact — not one — is cited to support these sweeping, false opinions.

Worse still — way worse — this “news article” decrees the Bush administration to be completely innocent, even well-motivated, even in those instances where technical, irrelevant lawbreaking has been found…

Does Calabresi or his Time editors have the slightest idea how secret, illegal spying powers have been used, towards what ends they’ve been employed and with what motives? No, they have absolutely no idea. Not even members of Congressional Intelligence Committees know because the Bush administration has kept all of that concealed. So Time just makes up facts to defend the Bush administration with wholly baseless statements that one would expect to come pouring out of the mouths only of Dana Perino and Bill Kristol — the “motivating factor” for secret, illegal spying was nothing “other than law and order or national security.” This article literally has more factual errors — pure, retraction-level falsehoods — than it has paragraphs. It makes Joe Klein look like a knowledgable and conscientious surveillance expert. It’s one of the most falsehood-plagued articles I’ve seen in quite some time.

The proposition that “polls consistently” find that Americans don’t mind incursions into their civil liberties is a rank falsehood.

Read the full article for a well-supported contention that Americans do care about the situation. What to do about it may well be the most important question in the upcoming election.

Via Time Magazine online:

A quick tally of the record of civil liberties erosion in the United States since 9/11 suggests that the majority of Americans are ready to trade diminished privacy, and protection from search and seizure, in exchange for the promise of increased protection of their physical security. Polling consistently supports that conclusion, and Congress has largely behaved accordingly, granting increased leeway to law enforcement and the intelligence community to spy and collect data on Americans. Even when the White House, the FBI or the intelligence agencies have acted outside of laws protecting those rights — such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — the public has by and large shrugged and, through their elected representatives, suggested changing the laws to accommodate activities that may be in breach of them.

In all the examples of diminished civil liberties, there are few, if any, where the motivating factor was something other than law and order or national security. There are no scandalous examples of the White House using the Patriot Act powers for political purposes or of individual agents using them for personal gain. The Justice IG report released Thursday, for example, examined some 50,000 National Security Letters issued in 2006 to see whether the FBI misused that specialized kind of warrantless subpoena. The IG found some continuing abuse of the power, but blamed it for the most part on sloppiness and bad management, not nefarious intent. In a press release accompanying the report, Fine said, “The FBI and Department of Justice have shown a commitment to addressing these problems.”

For now, however, civil libertarians will have to continue to argue that the danger lies not in how the government’s expanded powers are being used now, but how they might be used in the future. So far, that argument hasn’t convinced the people.

There’s an old joke; The two most destructive attitudes in society are ignorance and apathy…but I don’t know and I don’t care. It seems this may no longer be a joke.

Do the words attributed to Ben Franklin apply here? “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety“, used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759). It could be argued that the colonialists could not envision the threats we now face and that Franklin (or Richard Jackson or whoever) would not have been so absolute in saying that had they lived today.

Is security and national defense sufficient cause to restrict liberty and add conditions to our freedoms? Or are those concepts being used by a malevolent government in order to suppress dissent and control the population through fear and intimidation?

These are perhaps the most important questions we face as we move into the 21st century.