Skip to main content

Surprise! The people who want to spy on us don't think much of us, either.


Michael B. Mukasey, Steven G. Bradbury and David B. Rivkin Jr.--all Dubya-era stalwarts--have a new op-ed out about how the government should be allowed to collect data on us, pretty much without regard to constitutional limits, in order to "protect" us.

While they make a variety of technical/legal arguments, the real truth of their argument is that the American people are dolts and sheep.

The article is peppered with phrases like the following:

"the caterwaul of those seeking to dismantle vital U.S. counterterrorism capabilities." 
"the metadata program intrudes on consumers’ infatuation with their smartphones ..." 
"Most Americans willingly accept less privacy in exchange for the conveniences the Internet makes possible."
In other words, anybody who disagrees with them is simply a feeble-minded person willing to put America at risk over information that the government has an absolute right to have:
Americans know that many government agencies collect business records and information for lawful purposes and that this often includes personal data. What distinguishes the NSA is the importance of its national security mission and the extensive congressional and judicial oversight.
In fact, Mr. Mukasey et al, most Americans are finally coming to realize the extent to which you and others have betrayed your trust, that your ilk has consistently lied to Congress, the FISA courts, and the American people, and that you cannot be trusted with the brief to protect us while also respecting civil liberties.

The simple fact is that you don't have the ethical right, the Constitutional authority, or the public trust necessary to turn the NSA or any other government agency into the thought police.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...