I guess I kinda agree with Wittmann. When you look at the details, the wiretaps are against what in today's terror climate are considered suspicious people in this country making international calls.

Also, Bush's illegal wire taps (and they are illegal) are in defense of the country. He ought to get the FISA thing worked out so the monitoring is legal. No prez is above the law.

But if a few more wrinkles appear in the story, then it will get ugly. Raw story is reporting that NSA taps were used against UN diplomats in the run to Irag. Ok, getting warmer.

But if we find that the NSA was tapping political groups to help win elections, al la Nixon, then the shit will hit the fan. Not saying this is the case, but if it is, the outrage will have some real fuel. At this point, I'm giving Bush the BOTD. But I'm skeptical.

Karl Rove with NSA wiretaps. Now that is impeachable.

Americans WANT the FBI to wiretap Al Queda. Isn't that obvious?

So lemme see if I've got this: National Dems aren't quite sure about what they think, so until they can be reasonably sure what'll play with the focus groups, they'll keep comfortably decorous, polite.

That's sure an inspired way to persuade people that you can be courageous and make tough national security decisions, you bet!

By the way, the NSA wiretap program is legal and it has precedent from previous administrations.

Why is Steve Benen acting like the program is illegal?

By all means, let's listen to Wittmann--he's doing a fabulous job of making sure that every RNC talking point is backed up by admissions from Democrats like himself that the talking points are true.

Feh!

Bush broke the law. Period. This certainly qualifies as a "high crime," given that the penalties prescribed by statute make it a felony. Forget civil liberties, or "protecting America," or any of the other fatuous claptrap that can get twisted and spun. There is only one issue here:

Is the president bound by the laws of the United States?

We have more than 200 years of jurisprudence that state unequivocally that he is. He even takes an oath of office, swearing to uphold the laws.

For anyone to state that Bush should not be bound by our laws is to reject utterly the very foundations of this country. And that, by definition, is hatred of America.

Go right ahead, just follow the law and allow for some checks and balances

WHAT check and balances are you talking about? What should Democrats insist on?

Bottom line: what would you recommend Democrats do if Republicans proposed a bill permitting Bush to do exactly what he is doing right now? Should they vote yea or nay?

Shorter GOPGregory:

Ignorance is my only solace!

I understand Democrats being gun-shy about this. They know that the other side will always attack them as weak on national security and they are afraid of giving them more ammunition.

On the other hand, short of pulling a Lieberman and wholly endorsing the President's foreign policy in every way, there is nothing, nothing, nothing that will keep a Democrat from getting called a pansy weak-ass who lives in a September 10 world (tm). They might as well accept this and do the right thing, which is to say that the brave new post-9/11 world doesn't give Bush the right to break the law. Even assuming that this will keep the Democrats a minority party, I'd rather have a minority party that does the right thing than a majority party that does the wrong thing. The Democrats had a majority in the Senate in 2002, and they screwed up by giving Bush the authority to fight the Iraq war; they're doing a lot more good now as a minority party, because they are at least making some token gestures toward doing the right thing.

If the suggestion to not criticize W for spying on Americans is taken so seriously by the Democrats, the Democratic Party deserves all the electoral defeats that it will endure in the coming years.

Republican: Security through tyranny.

Democratic response: I'm all for security.

(cross posted from carpetbagger.com)

However, if it's "We need to eavesdrop in order to protect the country" vs. "Go right ahead, just follow the law and allow for some checks and balances," it's at least a fair fight based on the facts.

Absoluetly right. Not abuse of power–that's too theoretical. Not eroding our civil liberties–that's too complicated.

Law and order. They broke the law. Breaking the law is not okay. That's something that the all-important swing voter can understand and be angry about. Plus, it forces the GOP to say, "No, we didn't break the law because [insert legalistic reasoning here]."

To which we reply, "You broke the law. You didn't like the law and even though your party controls Congress you didn't change the law. You decided you were above the law. No one is above the law."

Double plus, it fights right in with the whole Delay, Abramoff sleaziness.

By all means, let's listen to Wittmann--he's doing a fabulous job of making sure that every RNC talking point is backed up by admissions from Democrats like himself that the talking points are true.

There's that point, too. Y'know, maybe it's possible that, despite his own self-promotion as some kind of political divining rod, Wittman doesn't represent anything other than his own grab bag of prejudices and reactions? Hell, the guy can do a complete 180 from one Moose post to the next. After a while you realize that you may as well be listening to the crank at the local bar....

Law enforcement always wants more power. That is natural and a given. Not only does it want more than is good and proper for our nation and Constitution, law enforcement wants more than is good for itself.

Like a kid in a candy shop, it is "I NEED this", "I NEED that". But it creates nothing more than a belly ache.

Too much information is even more deadly than not enough. There is no Google for terrorists. Law enforcement will commit suicide by drowning in information if it is not stopped. It is an addiction, and overdose is always a threat.

I repeatedly point out that everyone admits that US agencies, the FBI in particular, had all the information they needed to uncover the 911 attacks. The so called 20th hijacker was in custody, the info was on his PC. The FBI chose not to explore that information against the specific requests of the field agent in charge. They had the ability to gain access, but the reviewer insisted on improperly leaving out the required details that the field agent, Crowley, had specified.

Allow the FBI, et al, more access to data and we will find even less functional capability.

The Bull Moose could be right about the political dangers, but of course he himself is one of those painting the Democrats as weak on national security. And if Wittman is really a Democrat, I don't understand his motivation for trusting and praising Bush:

And does anyone seriously believe that the targets of these calls were anyone else than potential security threats?

Yes, a lot of us have serious doubts about that, especially since the recent revelations that the government has been spying on peaceful activists supporting peace, abortion rights, and animal rights.

What we do know is that we have not suffered another attack on the Homeland since 9/11. That is a miraculous fact. And President Bush should be applauded for protecting the country rather than excoriated, to say nothing of impeachment which is on the lips of some Democrats.

This is just embarrassing, repeating Cheney talking points. If the Moose wants to go all weak in the knees at our godlike commander-in-chief, he should go back to being a Republican.

The truth is that there is a PR infrastructure willing make an organize assault on any politician or figure who criticizes Bush in public. This isn't a matter of poll-testing or other such things. It's a fact. Don't believe me? Just examine the timing of which politician your curmudgeonly bush-supporting uncle was complaining about, and you'll notice it lines up exactly with whatever set of talking points the hate-radio guys were pushing that week. Unless the Democrats hit back on Bush's illegal wiretapping in an organized fashion, and hit back hard-- to the point where even Marshall Wittman is willing to parrot the Democratic party line for his own good-- then the Democrats are screwed on this issue. It's not a matter of whether it will make them look weak on national security, it's a matter of whether they can stand up to the PR attacks.

democratic leaders are acting like battered wives. they are afraid of being battered if they stand up for what is right, knowing fully well that the Republicans' assault on them and on their supposed weakness on national security will be equally vicious whether they criticize the President or not.

what a bunch of seventh grade sissies.

Of course there's also the very valid point that the President's lack of respect for the Constitution and ever-poor judgement has made America once again less safe from the very threat he says he's protecting us from since now each and every conviction against a terrorist will be challenged on the grounds of illegally gathered evidence. Way to go, jackass!

But don't worry, Bush was also using the NSA to spy on you and me, since we were the biggest threat to him. I mean what was more likely, a terrorist forcing Bush out of the White House or the American people? And we all know that the number one concern of Bush and his cronies has never been the safety of the American people (see PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" for further evidence, or the 9/11 Commission report card). First and foremost Bush cares about power, getting and keeping it. And if these callow shameful jerkoffs have shown us anything in the last five years it's never to let the truth get in the way of their agenda and never pass up an opportunity to ratfuck your political opponent.

The best predictor of future performance is past behavoir. What's that tell you is at the heart of the NSA scandal, protecting the country or the Chimp?

Yes, a lot of us have serious doubts about that, especially since the recent revelations that the government has been spying on peaceful activists supporting peace, abortion rights, and animal rights.

Well, y'know, those PETA terrorists are a fearsome bunch, liberating dairy cows, haranguing cheese eaters, etc.

Bush had 4 years to figure out how to do this legally. He had a Republican congress to work with. But he chose to do it illegally. The choice wasn't whether or not to conduct surveillance--the choice was whether to do it legally or illegally.

He broke the law and we still don't know why. Why did he choose to break the law?

I'd like to see the Democrats propose a Constitutional amendment asserting a right to privacy.

Q. Who is for govt intrusion into private lives?

A. The Republicans

The biggest threat to the US has alwys been from within. There is no credible external enemy with the power to destroy the US outside of total nuclear war. There is no credible external enemy with the power to even dent the US. The US is the strongest nation on Earth, and will remain that way until we screw up enough to change that.

The US population is its own worst enemy. We have a system in place that is capable of the most outstanding of human achievements, and of near perfect self regulation. All citizens need to do is be smart, and vote.

But we don't. And we get led by our fears and vices, and put a leader who is a perfect reflection of those fears and vices in charge of the government.

Soft democrats (such as Kevin Drum) enable fear to continue to rule us. He was proud to beat the war drums up until the last second, repeating republican neocon talking points almost without question, and being more than willing to tell everyone how wrong we were to think of anything other than security, even through the last election. My god, the world must seem a scary place to them. We still get periodic installments from Kevin about how vital our external security is, a philosophy that only cuts the feat from under the wiser and braver souls who know the only way to pull America back from the abyss is to not let our diminutive enemies control our actions through fear.

Democrats need to find the spirit of Roosevelt again. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. We can NEVER win the security arguement, because there will always be a republican demagogue willing to be more extreme than us.

We need a leader to give a "buck up, princess" speech, and tell us the bad men are pissants who got a lucky break due to an incompetent administration. We need a leader who will pull out of Iraq, and finish off Al Qaida. We need a leader who will concentrate on the internal threats - stupidity, poverty, racism, crime (of all colored collars), greed.

Steve, any chance you you staying here permanently?

I get it.

The Democrats are Republicans' bitches. The Democratic party leaders play their assigned role rather too well.

Bush and Cheney have left one door wide open for the Democrats, from the beginning, and maybe it is time for the Democrats to show courage by walking through that door.

I am talking about opposing the "GWOT" wholesale. The Bush policy has been to treat Al Quaeda et alia as a semi-military organization, as someone to go to war with/against. All of their tactics have been, "forget the rules, let's go at these guys with everything we've got".

The alternative is to treat Al Quaeda as a criminal organization: "follow the rules, be careful and systematic, and bring in your man."

Overall, the Bush strategy has not been a winning one. Lawless wiretapping is just one element in a totally misconceived "GWOT", which prevents or hinders doing what we should have done, from the beginning, to bring the bad guys to justice, while advancing global peace, stability and harmony.

But don't worry, Bush was also using the NSA to spy on you and me, since we were the biggest threat to him.

Speak for yourself! I, for one, don't make international telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives. I guess you are implying that you do. If so, well, too bad that you get spied on.

If the controversy boils down to "Bush wants to spy on bad guys and Dems aren't happy about it," it's a phony debate that skirts the real issues.

The last time I checked, most people don't seem to understand or care when debates are phony. See: Swift Boats, ID vs evolution, War on XMas.

A recurring problem is that Democrats might be *correct*, but only a small minority hears through the noise of the mighty wurlitzer. They need better, more concise and aggressive talking points - 'the president broke the law' - and they need a more widespread and organized messaging infrastructure.

I was wodering how the repugs seem to be a step a head, Now we know why, wiretapping to win Elections. Impeach!

Bush and Cheney have left one door wide open for the Democrats, from the beginning, and maybe it is time for the Democrats to show courage by walking through that door.

More than that -- show some fucking courage. Some national leader (preferably a Dem, but...) needs to follow the advice of Mysticdog, above, and point out that the Republic can only be threatened by cave-dwelling medievlists if Americans agree to throw away their best traditions. People talk about Bush's shining moment after September 11 -- hell, I never heard that speech from him, and I still haven't, and I don't expect I ever will. Instead, he's turning us into Guatemala writ large. Dems need to quit pussyfooting around about this.

Marshall Wittmann expressed similar concerns last week when he argued, "[T]he donkey is effectively "rebranding' and 'framing' itself as weak on national security."

Demanding that the administration's use of eavesdropping that has substantial chance of monitoring the private information and conversations of US persons be subject to review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has robust protections of security, can issue warrants after the fact, etc., is not "weak on national security". Its giving the executive every power it could legitimately need to conduct monitoring for national security purposes while, at the same time, providing oversight to assure that it is not abused, as past administrations have abused monitoring ability provoking the passage of FISA, as a tool to surveil domestic groups, for non-foreign-intelligence purposes, without oversight.

The issue of civil liberties is inseperable from the issue of accountability which is inseperable from the issue of national security, and, particularly, providing monitoring to assure that the executive is using resources assigned to "national security" for that and rather than, say, personal or partisan political purposes.

This is not a monarchy. There are requirements for either Congressional oversight (of non-warrant-based surveillance) or judicial oversight (of warrant-based surveillance) that the executive has avoided not out of any legitimate national security interest, not out of necessity or time pressure (since both requirements are after-the-fact), but simply and plainly out of the desire to avoid accountability, which is inexplicable unless the surveillance undertaken, is, in the administration's view, unjustifiable and unable to survive review, or unless the Administration has a desire to defy the law for the sake of defying the law, or both. Now, members of the Administration -- Dick Cheney foremost -- have stated that they don't like the post-Watergate laws put into place to provide accountability for domestic abuse and they seek to restore the Presidency to its unrestrained state before those laws were implemented, so its pretty clear, and not even hidden, that, whether or not the acts were justified, at least part of the motive for evading the legal requirement was to spit on the Constitutional duty of the President to see that the laws are faithfully executed. And that reason alone is enough to demonstrate that the leadership of this Administration is unsuitable for any position of trust, and certainly shouldn't be trusted with powers of arbitrary surveillance.

I, for one, don't make international telephone calls

Yo Al, you missed the latest talking points. Domestic calls were tapped as well.

Question Al: would you be okay if it was President Hillary Clinton doing what you think Bush did?

Speak for yourself! I, for one, don't make international telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives. I guess you are implying that you do. If so, well, too bad that you get spied on.

Ya never know, Al, they might be listening to your militia buddies, too.

While you people frolic in your own reality, have you checked out what the Democrats are doing who are actually going to be facing voters in 2006?

My favorite coal-mine canary in these issues is Hillary Clinton. I haven't seen all the news yet this week, but I think we're still waiting for her big Bush-bashing speech on the NSA issue.

Some are making the error that Democrats are unfairly having their national security credentials taken away from them. Sorry, but they're still firmly in the negatives on this. The Democrats have taken the wrong side on most national security issues for thirty years now, and they've got a long way to go to prove they can be trusted with the issue.

Remember, Republican candidates don't have to be great to win elections. They just have to be better than whatever Democrats are running against them. I think you found that out the hard way in 2004.

Democrats need to find the spirit of Roosevelt again.

Now THAT'S funny. FDR, undisputed champion of civil liberties in wartime.

Speak for yourself! I, for one, don't make international telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives.

And, so long as Bush's surveillance of US persons isn't subjected to judicial review as the law explicitly requires, there is no reason to believe any administration claim that those monitored do, either, except the word of someone who openly betrays their sworn duty, and his willing followers.

BTW, Steve, this isn't a "frameup." It's mostly the Republicans simply letting the Democrats run off the edge of the cliff with an issue again. It's worked pretty well so far.

Good grief. We can't have both security and protection of our liberties? I guess if we view government as being as totally incompetent as the Michael Browns of the world - I can see the concern of these pretend Democrats. The problem, however, is that this Administration is generally incompetent at fighting a real war on Al Qaeda saving all its expertise in a partisan war on we Democrats even as they go well beyond what Tricky Dick and his gang did over 30 years ago. There is no excuse for either their incompetence at fighting GWOT or their end running the law and perhaps our civil liberties. I'm sorry but any Democrat who wishes to defend this garbage is welcome to leave my party.

But GOPGregory ... if they're spying on Al Qaeda, they'll have no problem getting FISA approval, which they can do AFTER they've already spied.

Get it?

WHAT check and balances are you talking about?

If you want to spy on communication channels substantially likely to contain the communications or information of US persons on the basis that that channel contains foreign intelligence information between foreign powers and their agents, you should present evidence to the FISA court, with its already robust security procedures and capacity for after-the-fact review, demonstrating probable cause that the channel is being used between foreign powers and/or their agents, and identifying the minimization procedures designed to prevent capture and retention of information unrelated to that intelligence objective from US persons on the channel.

That's the "checks and balances". And no change to the law is needed.

Dearest GOPGregory

Say it with me brother:

Freedom through Surveillance
Freedom through Surveillance
Freedom through Surveillance
Freedom through Surveillance
Freedom through Surveillance

I think Greg should offer up his household for a pilot program to see just how effective Freedom through Surveillance would be. Like all his phone lines tapped and cameras in every room of his house with direct feed to the local precinct house.

Would do wonders in keeping his household free of burglary, rape, islamofascists, murder, commies, theft, socialists, and even the temptation to pick his nose or commit some aberrant sex act other than humping the wife face to face.

I mean we have read about this type of sincere concern of the government for our complete safety in books like "1984" but has any of you ever dreamed that such serenity would be possible.

I am tearing up just thinking about it. (sniff)

Those slippery slopes are tricky just ask any anti-big government conservative.

What these jackasses don't get is that giving in on an issue like this does NOTHING to prevent Dems from looking 'weak on national defense'. Hell, the fact that they echo the points that the issue DOES make them weak on national defense only perpetuates it. They're giving in to the big lie.

I'll give the Democrats hell over this if they take this advice to heart and cave in, since that just means they've fucking internalized the same damn message and have gone far beyond giving up their spine, especially when something like this falls into their laps.

What the Dems need to do ISN'T focus less on this issue. It's actually FRAMING the damn issue so people like these Jackasses can't brush it off as 'Oh, Democrats are being too zealous and look like their against safety'.

"But if a few more wrinkles appear in the story, then it will get ugly. Raw story is reporting that NSA taps were used against UN diplomats in the run to Irag. Ok, getting warmer."

um, not only was this extensively reported 3 years ago...but if you think that it's newsworthy or unusual for any administration to spy on diplomats at the UN (or anywhere else)....oy!

Tbone,

"The Democrats have taken the wrong side on most national security issues for thirty years now, and they've got a long way to go to prove they can be trusted with the issue."

Of course, you and I may not agree on what "the wrong side" is. We probably don't even agree on what a "Democrat" is. But as our resident moral compass and infallible arbiter of right and wrong, perhaps you'd like to cite some examples?

Raw story is reporting that NSA taps were used against UN diplomats in the run to Irag.

Communications among UN diplomats and between UN diplomats and their home governments are fairly clearly within the scope of warrantless surveillance allowed under FISA for foreign intelligence purposes.

Yo Al, you missed the latest talking points. Domestic calls were tapped as well.

Yup. It turned out that some of the al Qaeda operatives who were called (and who we thought were in a foreign country) were actually IN THIS COUNTRY!

Bad, BAD Bush. He should never, ever spy on al Qaeda operatives who are IN THIS COUNTRY.

If you want to spy on communication channels substantially likely to contain the communications or information of US persons on the basis that that channel contains foreign intelligence information between foreign powers and their agents, you should present evidence to the FISA court, with its already robust security procedures and capacity for after-the-fact review, demonstrating probable cause that the channel is being used between foreign powers and/or their agents, and identifying the minimization procedures designed to prevent capture and retention of information unrelated to that intelligence objective from US persons on the channel.

Well, since probable cause doesn't exist for the calls surveiled by the NSA program, a warrant would not be obtainable. Accordingly, you would apparently prefer that we do NOT surveil these conversations at all.

That's fine. I'm perfectly happy going into the election with the choice between Bush wanting to surveil such calls and Democrats advocating prohibiting such surveillance.

Steve Benen wrote: The White House and its allies would prefer that all criticism of the warrantless-search program be dismissed as petty ideological squabbling over civil liberties. Why any Dem would want to help in that endeavor is beyond my understanding.

The White House and its allies would prefer that all efforts to protect fundamental civil liberties -- which is to say, to protect the very essence of what America is all about as a free society -- be dismissed as "petty ideological squabbling".

Why Steve Benen would want to help in that endeavor is beyond my understanding.

No one ever seems to want to talk about how risk averse we have become -- positive wimps compared with earlier generations. The Bush administration (read Rove) know how to play this very well, and the Democratic Party just bumbles on, responding obediently in the language of the opposition's agenda.

If we could only get back the concept of a more "muscular" democracy in which we -- as individuals -- are aware that we're going to have to be smarter and more vigilant and more engaged in self-government, and one helluva lot more willing to accept risk as the price one pays for an open society, freedom, and a progressive future! Don't look for leaders who'll do it all for you -- we ought to know by now where that takes us!

As Kryptik points out (above) we need to reframe the language of the debate so that we win the argument and quit ranting on with the same old sobs and hiccups.

"Well, since probable cause doesn't exist for the calls surveiled by the NSA program, a warrant would not be obtainable. Accordingly, you would apparently prefer that we do NOT surveil these conversations at all.

That's fine. I'm perfectly happy going into the election with the choice between Bush wanting to surveil such calls and Democrats advocating prohibiting such surveillance."

I have to say that Al's on point here. Some posters do seem to be missing the fact that surveillance could well be useful...even necessary, in situations where probable cause didn't exist....in a legal sense. However, I don't understand why the administration didn't seek to modify FISA to accomodate this.

GOPGregory writes: "By the way, the NSA wiretap program is legal and it has precedent from previous administrations."

Legal? The why all the cowardice, secretiveness, going behind everybody's back?

Precedent? Yes, the Nixon administration.

There is no way in the world Bush's actions will stand. He will not be allowed to continue to do this. Most Americans are not at all interested in allowing a President that much power.

His actions were illegal and the mainstream legal establishment knows it. You have the same old chickenhawks preening and trying to accuse Democrats of being weak on national defense. That's always been a joke and still is.

When in his life did the "tough" George Bush ever stand up to a bully, face to face? He's only tough while he has the American military as his play toy.

impeachment of the bushcriminal will settle any issues related to politcal framing.

Having said that, it is well within my understanding why fake, phony, pseudo-libertarian poseurs like tbrosz would defend Bush's attacks on fundamental civil liberties, since their so-called "libertarianism" consists of absolutely nothing but a pathological hatred of paying taxes, and they'd be perfectly happy to have Bush not only wiretap everybody but start herding Democrats and liberals into concentration camps, if that's what it takes to protect their tax cuts.

Well, since probable cause doesn't exist for the calls surveiled by the NSA program, a warrant would not be obtainable.

If you are asserting that there is no probable cause to believe that "(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power ...; and (B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power", then how can you make the claim that this surveillance is, in fact, necessary to surveil al-Qaeda or other enemies and their agents?

Accordingly, you would apparently prefer that we do NOT surveil these conversations at all.

Well, I am assuming that, as the right has argued in defense of the necessity of these programs, they are directed at targets for which, while there is not probable cause of a specific criminal violation, are exclusively conversations where the target is a foreign power or agent thereof, used in part to identify other agents of foreign powers threatening the United States. Are you saying that the defense of the program is based on lies?

Accordingly, you would apparently prefer that we do NOT surveil these conversations at all.

Its possible that a case could be made that a case could be made for additional grounds for issuing a warrant based on probable cause to believe some other justification, but the arguments so far made for the Bush program that I have seen all fall within the grounds for which warrants may already be issued under FISA. Your claim that there is no probable cause to believe that the targets against whom the surveillance is directed are agents of foreign powers or foreign powers themselves is novel.

showing anti-America repukelicans standing shoulder to shoulder with the bushcriminal on his illegal acts is perfect for the dems.

It turned out that some of the al Qaeda operatives who were called (and who we thought were in a foreign country) were actually IN THIS COUNTRY!

Hey, but in your next post, you claim there is no probable cause to believe that the people called or calling were al-Qaeda operatives. I mean, that's your whole case for why FISA rules are too restrictive. Make up your mind.

athos:

One good example is arms control, where in almost every case, the Democratic Party in the final years of the Cold War adopted the Soviet negotiation positions on disarmament, missile deployment, missile defense, weapons production, etc.

We could also get into the various "revolutionary" movements in this hemisphere that were clients of the Soviet Union. Where did the Democrats stand on attempts to prevent this?

How about the Democratic position on building up the U.S. military in the 1980s?

If we get into the Left in general instead of the Democratic Party specifically, it gets a lot worse. Of course, recently it's been hard to tell the two categories apart.

Does it bother you at all that al Qaeda's propaganda often uses the same talking points as the Democratic Party?

Some posters do seem to be missing the fact that surveillance could well be useful...even necessary, in situations where probable cause didn't exist....in a legal sense.

Apparently not useful enough to justify writing the laws to allow it. Your statement is a pure hypothetical. "It might well be useful for the president to order an assassination of anyone he chooses on american soil." Yes, fine, but killing people without due process is also against the law.

their so-called "libertarianism" consists of absolutely nothing but a pathological hatred of paying taxes

Not true. Some of the younger ones want pot to be legal, as well.

SecularAnimist:

The main problem with your statement is that much of what is listed as violations of our civil liberties on this board are largely imaginary. I've seen many posts that assume as fact the idea that Bush is using the NSA for political spying.

But, please, go ahead, Democrats. Do your very best Slim Pickens imitation up until next November and ride this bomb all the way down to the ground.

Constantine: I don't think it's hypothetical. That doesn't mean that FISA shouldn't have been altered but here's an easy example:

I don't think it can be disputed that it would be useful to monitor all telephone calls placed from the northwest tribal regions of Pakistan to the U.S....or vice versa.

The White House and its allies would prefer that all criticism of the warrantless-search program be dismissed as petty ideological squabbling over civil liberties. Why any Dem would want to help in that endeavor is beyond my understanding.

Because many Dems expect to regain the White House in 2008 and would love to have this tool?

I've seen many posts that assume as fact the idea that Bush is using the NSA for political spying.

Isn't spying on the UN political spying? Or PETA and other fringe left groups?

And the point isn't so much that Bush is spying, but whether the office of the president, all the way down to the NSA night-shift supervisor, can be trusted with that much power. Again, do you want Hillary and her team to have this same right in 3 years?

Other than the Moschella letter to hill leaders, all the arguments being made by Bush and his lackeys are spectaculary "political" ones. Have they failed to realize that the court of opinion is not where this issue will be judged? No degree of obfuscation will trump the Constitution.

Does anyone genuinely believe that the founding fathers "intended" for the Executive branch to have total unchecked power “without” the oversight of the Legislative branch of government? Ultimately, This issue will come down to this question. The Constitution is a document that assumes our rights pre-exist and provides deliberate limits and restrictions on governmental power and authority so that no one branch of government, and certainly no individual, is in a position to even “unintentionally” comit acts of tyranny. The fact that Mr. Bush is attempting to sell the argument that he has been granted sole discretion in the authorization of abridging our pre-existing rights would be anathema to the founding fathers and is contradictory to the intent and purpose for the creation of the Constitution.

"Isn't spying on the UN political spying?"

not in the sense that was intended -- domestic politics. spying on diplomats at the UN -- or UN diplomats -- is normal espionage actually. it's pretty amusing that some are surprised by this or think that it's abnormal.

A comparison of the Bush bootlicker brigade's commentary on this thread, and the previous thread regarding the Department of Homeland Security's abject failure to implement crucial measures to protect America from actual terrorist attacks, is very illuminating.

Here they are defending attacks on essential civil liberties by secretive, authoritarian government -- claiming that if you don't support such measures, you are "weak on national defense".

In the previous thread, they are defending the Bush administration's failure to implement the very measures that Bush's DHS itself identified as essential and top priority steps protect America from terrorist attacks -- claiming that if you criticize Bush's DHS, you are just being "political".

What these people are really about, obviously, has nothing whatever to do with America's national security, and everything to do with establishing the permanent rule of a corrupt, criminal, authoritarian single-party state, of, by and for the ultra-rich, hereditary, neo-fascist corporate-feudalist ruling class of America.

This should not be hard at this point for Dems. If Bush zigs, Dem should automatically zag.

Oppose anything and everything the WH is trying to do.

Bush is a lame duck and should be treated as such. His own party will realize this sooner than most Dem politicians.

tbrosz: I could care less what al Qaeda's talking points are day to day. Their propaganda does not impact my thinking. My perception is that sometimes our (USA) right-wingers are reacting to what they say literally, which is exactly what they want.

Your arms control example is amusing. We did not “adopt” Soviet positions, we literally forced them to accept our positions, with pressure, short-term and long-term.

When Carter negotiated deploying all those missiles in Europe, it certainly was not easy, but he succeeded. By the time the dates arrived for them to be deployed, we had a big careless mouth as President who was foolish enough to run around Europe talking about “winnable” nuclear war. It causes such a furor that there were demonstrations and demands that Germany renege on its agreement to deploy the missiles. Fortunately, Reagan realized he had better shut up so that the missiles could be deployed.

That kind of carelessness is not funny to people and me who populate the real world. Now days, the right brags about Reagan ending the cold war. Ha. They brag about him deploying the missiles, being to ill informed to realize they are giving the wrong guy credit. That’s pretty damn pitiful.

The right has faith in big talk, but they don’t back it up by doing their homework and by backing weapon system that will actually be deployed. Where’s SDI? Reagan promised that it would be deployed in the early nineties?

Those revolutionary movements in this hemisphere? Talking about Nicaragua? What a joke. Nicaragua was buying weapons from Carter and talking about how they were unaligned. Reagan changed all that with his bluster just because a few mid-level Sandinistas had one claimed to be communist. Again, it was a joke. Nicaragua was no threat whatsoever. A dirt poor third would country the size of Mississippi, but totally unable to threaten the Mississippi National Guard.

The right needs bogeymen, straw men to knock down. Our only hope is that we can educate our people enough to quit falling for these games. Our right-wingers bouncing off of “their” right-wingers.

The 80s arms build up? I’ll give you a challenge. What weapon systems were initiated in the 80s that were actually ever deployed?

Since no one is saying Bush shouldn't carry out surveillance on Al Queda suspects inside the US, Al, that's a nice strawman. Very flammable too.

The question is whether Bush is following the contraints of the law and the constitution in carrying out surveillance.

If he thinks FISA is too constraining he's had years to propose changes. He hasn't. The claim that he couldn't ask for changes without revealing important info to Al Q doesn't make a whole lot of sense on the face of it.

In any case, he could have called Congress, or at least the Senate and House Intelligence Committees into closed session to lay out his case instead of informing a few people under gag order that prevented them from even checking on the technical implications of whatever it is NSA was doing that couldn't be covered under FISA even with the "tap first, warrant later" clause.

The strong implication is that this is a massive data mining project of the type previously rejected by Congress that taps lots of purely domestic communications in the process of trying to filter out rare tidbits of real intelligence. Furthermore, I suspect it's picking up a LOT of information in the process, with no safeguards at all to insure that stuff is ignored and flushed if it isn't relevant. (Since you might want to go back and check prior data based on a new item.)

And, of course, once all that juicy info is sitting around and there isn't even the slightest outside oversight.

tinfoil:

When I was talking "political," I was thinking more along the lines of Nixon bugging Democratic facilities. Eavesdropping on specific political opponents.

Any president that WASN'T spying on the U.N., given the U.N.'s behavior, would probably be derelict in his duty.

As for animal rights people, a minority of them are probably the closest thing we have to domestic terrorists. Damn right somebody should be watching PETA. Keep in mind that this particular issue refers not to the NSA, but to the FBI, which is supposed to investigate U.S. citizens.

We could also get into the various "revolutionary" movements in this hemisphere that were clients of the Soviet Union. Where did the Democrats stand on attempts to prevent this?

Well, that's the thing. The Democrats were on the less popular side, but they were on the right side. Indeed, Reagan's actions in Nicaragua -- supporting the Contras, a thuggish movement very similar to the current Iraqi insurgency, even if he had to break the law to support them -- were very wrong and based on a paranoid, ridiculous idea that a few left-wing governments in small countries posed a threat to the U.S.

So the Democrats' position was the less popular one there. It was also the correct one. Sometimes you have to do the right thing.

But, please, go ahead, Democrats. Do your very best Slim Pickens imitation up until next November and ride this bomb all the way down to the ground.

Is any right-winger whatsoever going to note that that Rasmussen poll doesn't ask whether people would be in favor of this program if it turns out it broke the law, and as such, is totally irrelevant?

"Most of the criticisms seem to emphasize the rule of law, the constitutional process, and Bush circumventing the judiciary... "

Let's substitute Clinton for Bush in this sentence, and talk about lying under oath and you will have the right's side of the impeachment kerfuffle.

Instead of "It's about Clinton's Penis", we now have "Terrorist bill of rights" And you have the equvalent of the left's side of the Clinton kerfuffle.

I guess it all comes down to whose ox is being gored. Plus ca change...

The only winning way to frame this is to make Bush's power grab part of his larger FAILURE TO KEEP US SAFE. Thus, while Bush is running around in secret, playing Austin Powers w/the Quakers and PETA, he's FAILING to secure our borders, chemical plants and nuclear plants. Look at Katrina, look at what the 9/11 commisssion just said -- this administration, and this party are NOT KEEPING US SAFE. -- Bush is so damn busy breaking rules and defying Congress that he can't be bothered to follow the basic rules of disaster prevention and management and actually execute the power Congress gave him.

Unless we hammer this failure home, and tie it to Bush's secret spy campaign and illegal power grab, then WE WILL LOSE. Bush will be Dirty Harry, breaking a few rules to protect the wimmen and kiddies, and we will be the suits, the stiffs, the i-dotters and t-crossers who put legalisms before human life.

Oh, I forgot, Clinton's right to sexually harrass his employees and volunteers is far more legitimate that Bush's duty to defend the US against proven enemies. So my analogy does not hold.

What the Dems need to do here is to let the process do the hard political work for them.

There are going to be Congressional inquiries into this issue. Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress seem to be pretty clear that what the Bush WH has done has gone way beyond what it is allowed to do Constitutionally. Whatever the supposed benefits might be of these actions, the Bush WH does finally have to answer to some kind of rule of law, or try to explain why it imagines it doesn't have to.

Let them come out with that "explanation". Let Republicans try to spin their spin in the face of the obvious defiance of the FISA law.

THAT is the context in which Dems can press their case to good effect. Until it reaches that stage, the Bush WH can probably spin their actions as "protecting the country", and it will do Dems little good to object too insistently. When the WH has to explain how the Constitution allows it to perform these actions in front of a sceptical Congress is the point at which it all starts to look a bunch less wholesome.

tinfoil: Or PETA and other fringe left groups?

There's nothing "leftist" about PETA. PETA is a nonpartisan and apolitical organization. "Fringe" is arguable; some of PETA's positions are entirely within the mainstream of the animal protection movement, and others go beyond that. And FBI surveillance of PETA, including the use of undercover FBI informants working in the PETA offices, has been going on for around 20 years.

More generally, it's important to realize that political spying by the US government within the USA is nothing new. The specific actions of the Bush administration that are of concern today are just the latest in a pattern of authoritarian government abuses that go back, in my own personal memory and experience, at least to the 1960s with the spying on, and infiltration of, the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements.

And fake, phony, pseudo-libertarian poseurs like tbrosz just love that stuff -- as long as it's used to protect their tax cuts from the evil depradations of the Communist Party ... oh, I mean the Democratic Party. Well, according to tbrosz, there's no real difference between them anyway.

And according to tbrosz, it was perfectly fine and OK and lovely and wonderful for the Reagan administration in the 1980s to support both state and non-state right-wing terrorists in Latin America who tortured and murdered tens of thousands of innocent people -- raping and murdering priests and nuns for god's sake! -- because all of those innocent people were "clients" of the Soviet Union.

Protecting those tax cuts is tough, and sometimes dirty work. But somebody's got to do it.

"Is any right-winger whatsoever going to note that that Rasmussen poll doesn't ask whether people would be in favor of this program if it turns out it broke the law, and as such, is totally irrelevant?"

Yeah, I will. The poll is totally irrelevant. I suggest you follow you instincts. The American people will definitely take the side that we should not listen to terrorists, no matter what. This is the issue you guys will ride to power. I can see it, already.

"How about the Democratic position on building up the U.S. military in the 1980s?"

Twhores, as we all know, is a delusional troll, barely capable of typing the nonsense his handlers provide for him. This lovely bit of regurgitated pap above is typical lying Republican bullshit (as was everything else contributed by Twhores in this thread). It was a Republican President (Reagan) who kept force levels even throughout his 8 year presidency in the 80s. And it was Republican President in the late 80s and early 90s who carved half a million men and women from our armed forces. Bush and Cheney deliberately hacked our conventional forces apart then (and I'm sure Twhores applauded with his mouth full then too).

Yeah, I will. The poll is totally irrelevant. I suggest you follow you instincts. The American people will definitely take the side that we should not listen to terrorists, no matter what. This is the issue you guys will ride to power. I can see it, already.

Again, right-wingers have this amazing robot-brain ability to overlook the fact that this poll doesn't mention the issue of breaking the law, and as such has nothing to do with the issue. Hell, 64% is a rather low figure for Americans saying that the government should listen to terrorist suspects. If the question is "should the government break the law to listen to terrorist suspects," the figure would be quite a bit lower, don't you think?

Anyway, whether this is a winning political issue or not is not really relevant, is it? Bush broke the law; he should not get away with it even if 99% of Americans think it's perfectly hunky-dory. We are arguing for Democrats to take the moral and right position. You right-wingers care nothing for what's moral or right.

Now days, the right brags about Reagan ending the cold war. Ha.

This is how Russia remembers it. But what the heck would they know, right?

tbrosz wrote: One good example is arms control, where in almost every case, the Democratic Party in the final years of the Cold War adopted the Soviet negotiation positions on disarmament, missile deployment, missile defense, weapons production, etc.

I don't know if your claim about the positions adopted by "the Democratic Party" (which you seem to delusionally believe is some sort of well-disciplined monolith that unanimously adopts such "positions") are true.

But in the final years of the Cold War, Gorbachev's negotiation positions on nuclear disarmament were objectively better than Reagan's positions.

When Gorbachev and Reagan met, Reagan completely blew a very real chance to eliminate nuclear weapons completely, because he was beholden to the US military-industrial complex and its "Star Wars" missile defense boondoggle, which was and is nothing but a criminal scam designed to rip off the American taxpayer and enrich a bunch of "aerospace" corporate fat cats.

But we already know that you are perfectly happy to rip off the American taxpayer, for example to subsidized the economic failure of the nuclear power industry -- as long as it's other taxpayers, those less well off than yourself, who get ripped off.

Damn that Reagan. Nicaragua is now a democracy where the Sandanistas lose elections. Another black mark on the Republicans.

Now Bush is trying to do the same thing in Iraq. When will they learn?

If you are asserting that there is no probable cause to believe that "(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power ...; and (B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power", then how can you make the claim that this surveillance is, in fact, necessary to surveil al-Qaeda or other enemies and their agents?

The targets here are people who are LINKED to al Qaeda. I assume that a "link" to al Qaeda doesn't consitute probably cause that the target is himself an agent of a foreign power.

Well, I am assuming that, as the right has argued in defense of the necessity of these programs, they are directed at targets for which, while there is not probable cause of a specific criminal violation, are exclusively conversations where the target is a foreign power or agent thereof, used in part to identify other agents of foreign powers threatening the United States. Are you saying that the defense of the program is based on lies?

No. The targets are not persons for whom there is probable cause to believe they are agents of foreign powers. As I understand it, these are people who are linked to agents of foreign powers. We then take the information we have learned from the surveillance, run it through a data mining operation, and see if anything comes out that would THEN (after the data minig operation) tell us that the target is an agent of a foreign power.

Its possible that a case could be made that a case could be made for additional grounds for issuing a warrant based on probable cause to believe some other justification, but the arguments so far made for the Bush program that I have seen all fall within the grounds for which warrants may already be issued under FISA. Your claim that there is no probable cause to believe that the targets against whom the surveillance is directed are agents of foreign powers or foreign powers themselves is novel.

It's novel? Really??? I've seen it all over the place. In fact, I believe Kevin himself has said it.

If the question is "should the government break the law to listen to terrorist suspects," the figure would be quite a bit lower, don't you think?

Since the law was, in fact, not broken, it's a rather misleading question, don't you think?

"Again, right-wingers have this amazing robot-brain ability to overlook the fact that this poll doesn't mention the issue of breaking the law"

How does my post support your argument in any way? I agreed with you, 100% If you find that hard to believe, it says something about your confidence in the issue. Naaah!

Damn that Reagan. Nicaragua is now a democracy where the Sandanistas lose elections. Another black mark on the Republicans.

Um, Nicaragua was moving toward democracy without Reagan, as evidenced by the 1984 elections, which were not perfect (the Sandinistas sent out thugs to intimidate voters, etc.) but were better than average for a former dictatorship. Instead of pushing the Sandinistas to become more democratic, Reagan funded goons to kill a lot of Nicaraguans. After Reagan, Bush I adopted a less wingnutty policy, and another election was held, better than 1984's, where the Sandinistas lost.

In other words, Reagan's funding of the Contras had nothing to do with "democracy." It just caused a lot more Nicaraguans to die, just as Bush II's policies do nothing but cause a lot more Iraqis and Americans to die.

Apologies for intruding on the current thread with an issue from last week (ancient history?), but Kevin really should return to the thread from 12/24 regarding the NY subway strike.

According to Bloomberg (see below, and note the irony that the Mayor's company is among the first up reporting on the strike) the TWU and the MTA have reached tentative agreement, which the union is urging its members to ratify.

The deal maintains the current system, but all workers make an increased contribution to healthcare.

This is a settlement and a process democrats ought to endorse. It preserves three key democratic demands - better wages, while preserving pensions and healthcare, and has plenty of give and take by both sides. It was achieved through industrial action, which though unfortunate, was nonetheless necessary to bring management to the table.

The workers sacrificed a hell of a lot: not only in pay (two days for each day lost) but their union lost three million as a result of the judicial fines. And every employee - current and future - will pay more for healthcare.

Why? To preserve current benefits for FUTURE workers - those not yet even hired by MTA. This act of beautiful solidarity preserves union unity, but more importantly prevents the creation of two-tier second-class category of employees on the subways. Current employees put their jobs (and money) on the line to preserve young workers' access to a decent life: a pension which is a necessity for avoiding old-age poverty.

In the face of Bush's onslaught on workers - and especially on social security - this is a substantial and important victory which we should salute.

We are everywhere looking for fighting dems - well, in the 37,000 TWU members, don't you think we've found some? Don't you think you can find a way of embracing their efforts? Or maybe, at a minimum, talking about them? I'll tell you what - if I was in a difficult fight, I'd feel better if I knew the TWU brothers and sisters had my back.

Here's the Bloomberg piece:

New York Transit Union Asks Members to Ratify Contract Offer
Dec. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The board of New York's main transit union approved a new contract with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority last night and recommended the 32,000 workers who staged a three-day strike last week ratify the agreement, union president Roger Toussaint said.

Transport Workers Union Local 100 and the MTA concluded negotiations earlier in the day on a three-year contract. It preserves the existing pension system for both current and future workers -- a key demand of the union -- while requiring that employees make a first-ever contribution to their health insurance amounting to 1.5 percent of their salaries.

``This tentative contract provides the necessary cost- savings and productivity to keep the MTA solvent, mitigate fare increases and allow for vital investments in our transportation infrastructure,'' Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement issued after Toussaint's announcement.

Bloomberg had denounced the union's ``illegal strike'' in violation of the state's Taylor Law, which bars walkouts by public employees. The Dec. 20-22 work stoppage brought buses and subways used by 7 million daily riders on the largest U.S. transit system to a standstill and cost the city economy an estimated $1 billion.

The union's executive board, meeting at the union's headquarters on Manhattan's West Side, voted 37 to 4 to recommend acceptance of the contract, with one abstention, Toussaint said shortly after 11 p.m.

Thanks All Around

``I'd like to thank all the members of Local 100 for their unerring supporting and perseverance in the course of these very difficult past few weeks,'' Toussaint said. ``We'd also like to thank the riders and working people of New York for their patience, forbearance and understanding, for the equally difficult time spent by this entire city.''

A call for comment to MTA spokesman Tom Kelly after Toussaint spoke wasn't immediately returned. Earlier, Kelly said the contract also would have to be approved by the state-run authority's board. Its next regular meeting is Jan. 25, and Kelly said he didn't know if a special session would be scheduled sooner.

The union's members will vote by mail, a process that may take several weeks. The previous contract expired Dec. 15.

If they accept the contract, workers will receive pay raises of 3 percent in the first year, 4 percent in the second and 3.5 percent in the third, Toussaint said.

In the days leading up to the strike, the MTA made at least two proposals that would have treated current and future employees differently on pensions.

Refunds

One would have increased the retirement age for full pensions to 62 from 55 for new workers. The last one rejected by the union before the strike would have kept the retirement age for new workers at 55 while taking 6 percent of their salary, compared with the 2 percent contributed by current workers.

Toussaint said the final agreement provided for a ``refund of member contributions to pensions over the past several years.'' He didn't provide specifics, and didn't take questions from reporters.

Toussaint said there were other gains, including maternity leave stipends for female employees, improved benefits for families of workers who die in the line of duty, and provisions that will establish ``a greater degree of respect'' for workers in their day-to-day relations with MTA management.

``It's a significant victory for the union,'' said David Gregory, a professor of labor law at St. John's University in New York, as details of the framework for the agreement emerged in published and broadcast reports yesterday. Still, ``it's a victory that will cost them a lot of money,'' he said.

Penalties

The Taylor Law penalizes workers two days' pay for each day on strike. The union itself was fined $3 million in a court decision that is under appeal.

The workers went back to their jobs after state mediators won the MTA's agreement to reconsider its pension proposals and the union agreed to consider paying toward health care.

``In collective bargaining, it's important for both parties to get used to losing because they have to make initial demands or offers and then they have to be willing to accept less,'' said Gary Chaison, professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Union members probably will ratify the contract because it would be ``near suicidal'' to strike again, he said.

Subway operators earned an average of $62,438 a year, including overtime, under the previous three-year contract, the MTA said. Train conductors averaged $53,000, subway booth clerks $50,720, and bus drivers $62,551.

The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.

Actually, tbrosz, go into any Russian city and talk to ordinary people -- as I have -- and they associate the dissolution of the USSR with Gorbachev. The central reason for the implosion of the Soviet Union was the demoralization of its elites. True, its foreign policy rivalry with the West provided additional strains -- but those started with the Truman administration, not the sainted Ronnie.

Of course, even if you hadn't typed it, one could have predicted that you'd recycle the old myths. But "little ole jim from red country" has a much more accurate take on the actual history than you do* -- maybe you should pay attention?

* Never fails to astonish, the depth of ignorance of the history of their own country that right-wingers display.

M.A.
Once again, you are right. how can I argue with it? I just can't. It would just be trolling.

"Bush II's policies do nothing but cause a lot more Iraqis and Americans to die."

As opposed to Bush I, whose failure to remove Saddam condemned hundreds of thousands to execution and mass graves. Er no, let me rephrase that, supported the self determination of the Iraqi people, 80% of whom wanted to be ruled by the bloodthirsty 20%

Another winning issue for the Democrats! The elections in December never happened. One more huge issue and you guys will get a veto proof Senate and an impeachment minded Congress.

And Impeachment of Bush will be the third winning issue for you guys.

tbrosz: As for animal rights people, a minority of them are probably the closest thing we have to domestic terrorists.

That's absurd. Members of a right-wing militia group in Texas were busted last year, in possession of a huge stockpile of weapons and a cyanide bomb capable of killing thousands of people, and materials for making more such chemical weapons.

If they hadn't been discovered -- purely by accident, because a package of forged documents they mailed to another militia member was delivered to the wrong address by the post office -- they would have made Timothy McVeigh look like a schoolchild with a firecracker. And these folks were members of a wider network whose other members remain unidentified and at large.

And you think people who release minks from fur farms are "the closest thing we have to domestic terrorists."

You are just plain silly.

The strategy of the Democrats is obvious. They know there are libertarians and far Leftists out there who, if they voted in droves, outnumber conservatives and moderates when the conservative base is not out in droves, e.g., if an issue like gay marriage is not at-issue. they want libertarian votes in states where they count like Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico, states upon which the election can turn given the demographics. Democrats will try to stay away from social issues that rouse the ire of religious people, instead harping on issues that sound like privacy but cannot be tied to abortion or gay marriage, i.e., "civil liberties".

This is a smart-move in 2008 given that no one from Bush's administration will be running for President. In other words, there will be no claim that Democrats are just anti-Bush administration -- indeed, several Republicans will have to distinguish themselves from Bush, i.e., show they are true blue (or red) conservatives in order to win the nomination, or make a serious run for it. It will be hard to rally "conservatives" when many conservatives are simply right-wing libertarians who take "civil liberties" arguments SERIOUSLY.

It's a Democrat wedge-issue. They'll be using it and they'll be using Darfur as well.

"They'll be using it and they'll be using Darfur as well."

Where is the first sign of this? Democratic darlings in China, Europe, and at the UN seem rather intent on looking the other way.

I would love to see the Democrats, this time without irony, take up Darfur as an issue. It is there for the taking, you might even get the Instapundit on your side. It is a lot better than trying to tie the president's hands in the war on terror.

Imagine a bumber sticker like this: "Free Tibet, Keep Taiwan free too!" It would be like a line on a hockey team, left wingers, right wingers, and the center working toward one goal.