
Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S. - gagan2020
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/20/194513/obamas-crackdown-views-leaks-as.html#storylink=cpy
======
christkv
reminds me off the Hermann Goering quote from the Nuremberg trial in 1947.

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm
want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come
back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war
neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is
understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the
policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it
is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

~~~
refurb
That's a bit simplistic, no? Sure, you might only come back to your farm in
one piece, but what if the alternative to going to war is never coming back to
your farm? What if it means leading a life that is far worse that what you
currently have?

~~~
PavlovsCat
Yeah, what if indeed? Germany attacked Poland allegedly in self-defense, with
exactly those arguments, can't wait for the mushroom cloud blah blah _blah_.

So are we talking about there actually being the need for self-defense, or
about self-defense as pretext for self-destruction of the many for the gains
of the few? The few existential threats the US faces seem mostly to be inside
of it.

~~~
dllthomas
They probably didn't say "mushroom cloud"

~~~
camus
Bush did ,that's the point.

~~~
dllthomas
The Germans, going into WWII, did not. The term was coined later, and the
devices it's meant nowadays to imply were developed later. This is, of course,
an accident of history and I wasn't making a deep point, just having some fun,
but I do think you missed my point which was that threats of a mushroom cloud
_in particular_ would be a difference not a similarity between the two
situations.

~~~
PavlovsCat
"Mushroom cloud" to me basically means "we don't have time to think, because
then it will be too late!". In that sense, there is exactly zero difference
between Goebbels, Bush and Obama. They just outwardly behave less like total
pigs in ascending order, but the rationale is the same. "Finance us, and
finance us murdering you and people all over the world, or it will be EVEN
WORSE."

The daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador pretending she's a nurse and that
Saddams's soldiers are throwing newborns on the floor just because they can,
Powell with his slides telling the UN some trailers could be weapons
laboratories, and that Saddam must be attacked immediately, it's all the same
to me... it's not really about nuclear weapons, whatever works is used.

------
venomsnake
This was common in Eastern Europe and USSR during the purges - they were
"Enemies with a Party Ticket".

It is disturbing how easily this rhetoric comes.

~~~
mtgx
While I could understand why the vast majority of the government is in favor
of this, or why the mainstream media is with the government, too, however
disappointing that may be, what is most saddening is that there are a lot of
people out there who agree with them, too, maybe not the majority but even 40%
would be a very scary number.

Even in the most ruthless dictatorships there were a lot of normal people who
supported their leaders, the surveillance and police states. That's the
scariest part about this. If so many people believe in such ideas, it can take
several decades to turn away from that, just like if you would live in a
"communist" or "muslim" state, you'd know you're probably not going to see a
_true_ democracy in your country in your lifetime, even if there's a
revolution.

If US becomes a surveillance state and abuses are common, and people just
learn to "live with that", instead of protesting [1] before it's too late,
it's going to be very hard to fix that later on, and it's going to have to
become a lot worse for every single person, before things even _begin_ to
change, and that will take many years.

[1] - [http://www.restorethefourth.net/](http://www.restorethefourth.net/)

~~~
Sven7
And how do you plan to stop the next terror attack?

~~~
lukeschlather
I don't. We could have a 9/11 type event every year, and it would still not be
as big a problem as automobile accidents. If we're going to live in a police
state, I would hope the police state would focus on major causes of
preventable death, like disease and automobile accidents. Terrorism in the
United States is not a serious problem worthy of this level of concern.

~~~
Sven7
This is like saying lets have a lottery every year that picks 3000 people and
send them over to the middle east.

My point is people have to be pushed to answer the question on how to tackle
terrorism to take this debate in a constructive direction. Ofcourse
governments will do dumb things but the terrorism problem is a hard one.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The terrorism problem is a manufactured one. You want to fight terrorism?
Fine, your budget is proportional to the budget we use to solve other types of
murder based on the number of lives it costs us, and you can use the same
methods. If you don't agree you'll have to distinguish terrorism from other
types of murder in a defensible way, otherwise we should be treating them
equally.

~~~
twoodfin
What is this obsession with body counts? To bang again on my favorite drum,
many, may more Americans were dying of polio or coal mining accidents in 1941
than German or Japanese bombs. That doesn't mean it was stupid to enter World
War II.

Obviously those who have chosen to deliberately kill civilians in spectacular
ways are not right now a danger akin to imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. But
will it really take a dirty bomb, a successful mass infection/poisoning, or
god help us a nuke to stop this silly argument?

It's bizarre to me that one of the anti-anti-terror arguments of choice
reflects that hilariously dystopian scene in the film _Brazil_ , wherein the
staff and patrons of a restaurant that has just been bombed attempt to paper
over the incident by completely ignoring it, as innocent people suffer and
die.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>Obviously those who have chosen to deliberately kill civilians in spectacular
ways are not right now a danger akin to imperial Japan or Nazi Germany.

Obviously. Which is the point.

>But will it really take a dirty bomb, a successful mass infection/poisoning,
or god help us a nuke to stop this silly argument?

These are movie theater plots. "Mass poisonings" are a very poor attack vector
because as soon as they're identified they get publicized and people stop
consuming the adulterated product, which minimizes the impact. Spreading
infection has similar constraints, is difficult to contain (i.e. the attacker
can't prevent it from spreading to his own family/country), and it is vastly
more difficult to obtain weaponized infectious materials than poisons.

And dirty bombs are a media fabrication. Here's the money quote from Stratfor:
"By its very nature, the RDD is contradictory. Maximizing the harmful effects
of radiation involves maximizing the exposure of the victims to the highest
possible concentration of a radioisotope. When dispersing the radioisotope, by
definition and design the RDD dilutes the concentration of the radiation
source, spreading smaller amounts of radiation over a larger area."[1]

[1]
[http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100421_dirty_bombs_revisite...](http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100421_dirty_bombs_revisited_combating_hype)

Which leaves The Bomb. But terrorists can't build nuclear weapons. States can
barely do it. So if your concern is nuclear terrorism, the solution doesn't
require you to catch the terrorists, all you have to do is limit the
availability of weapons grade material. Which is a completely different
problem with completely different solutions that don't involve domestic
surveillance or foreign wars, is required to prevent state-level nuclear
proliferation regardless of terrorism anyway, and mostly just involves being
the highest bidder if weapons grade material ever becomes available on the
black market.

>It's bizarre to me that one of the anti-anti-terror arguments of choice
reflects that hilariously dystopian scene in the film Brazil, wherein the
staff and patrons of a restaurant that has just been bombed attempt to paper
over the incident by completely ignoring it, as innocent people suffer and
die.

I don't think anybody is arguing that there should be _no_ response to a
terrorist act. But why can't the response be to bring the terrorists to
justice as international criminals, and not to let it change the fabric of our
society?

~~~
hga
" _dirty bombs are a media fabrication_ " ... I don't know about this, once
you factor in Green hysteria about radiation. I suspect a dirty bomb in e.g.
Germany would have amazingly disproportionate results compared to the actual
threat.

In the US, we'd probably do what they did in NYC after 9/11 WRT to the
excessive claims of danger from asbestos, say "never mind" (after cleaning up
hot spots). And "don't eat dirt" and the like, but who knows?

Elsewhere I've touched on how I'm not as sanguine as you over the real nuclear
threat.

------
crististm
That raises the question: who is US after all? Is it the officials or is it
the people?

~~~
dpeck
Ive tried to stop myself from forming opinions of the residents of other
countries by the actions and rhetoric of their political leaders, whether
elected or otherwise. I would hope others do the same and don't believe the
actions of DC to be anything more than an exaggerated and often inaccurate
caricature of the American people.

~~~
chez17
I've quickly changed my mind about this sort of thinking. It's a nice little
"get out of jail free" card for everyone. We should be held responsible for
our government's actions, at least to some degree (especially in a democracy).
How many of us _really_ sacrifice significant resources and time to causes
that would make the country/world better? How many here spend more at the bar
than they do in charity every month? How many spend hours consuming media but
don't take the time to keep educated about politics? What's the turnout at
major primaries? Ten percent? Twenty?

It's easy to say, we shouldn't judge the people of the country because it
feels good to us and, in reality, most people are rather decent. However, I
think it should be the opposite, we should all be ashamed of ourselves for
letting ourselves get bought off for a little convenience and comfort. We're
all guilty to varying degrees. We should step up and accept that. The first
step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem.

~~~
dpeck
I can see your point, but at the same time I have to look at the situation
most people are in.

Sometimes people are truly in the minority, say for instance a gay man in
Jamaica. He could essentially sacrifice his life to try to move the needle on
his countries tolerance level, or he could be discrete and live his life. I'll
be the first to cheer on the former, but I don't believe that its my place to
judge the latter for inaction.

I don't believe that its right to hold people responsible for their
governments actions while much of the world lacks freedom of movement, and
those in power have nearly all the tools at their disposal to hold onto that
power.

------
DanielBMarkham
A bit off-topic, but related: there's also a huge increase in the number of
federal agencies who are outfitting their own SWAT teams. (This type of
service, if really needed, could be delivered by the FBI or local law
enforcement)

SWAT teams traditionally have been there to diffuse potentially violent
confrontations -- to reduce violence. But in the last decade or so
[correction: three decades], we've seen a change in the nature of SWAT. Now
the teams are being used increasingly as shock police forces, bringing an
escalated level of violence to a situation in order to overwhelm any
possibility of danger to the officers or general public.

Seeing guys like the FDA, DOE, or EPA with their own SWAT teams is a bit
unsettling, to say the least. One wonders where this will all stop.

~~~
big-jdx
Does that tie in to the recent stories about the Feds buying so much ammo? So
many indicators lately that are disturbing.

*edited to add link

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billio...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-
rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/)

~~~
kahirsch
The numbers that were given were contracts that allowed them to purchase up to
that amount of ammunition at a given price over 5 years. The actual quantity
purchased last year was more than an order of magnitude less than reported.[1]

[1][http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&...](http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9cde768f-bb3a-4fd9-8176-1745c21519c2)

------
shaunrussell
one must ask, why does the US have enemies?

~~~
alan_cx
More over, why so many perceived enemies who are US citizens? Why is the US
government treating its own citizens as enemies of the state?

As a non American, I take a perverse sort of comfort from that idea that it
looks like the US government is as scared of its own people as it is
foreigners. At least we foreigners and American citizens are in it together.

Truth is, we are enemies of US government behavior, not the United States of
America or its fine people. We critical non Americans are actually arguing for
America to be better, not worse. We want it stronger through fairness, justice
and, well, just plain decent behavior. Not through cowardice, fear, and the
bullying fist. Just imagine how powerful the US could be if the rest of the
world actually liked and respected it, rather than feared it. People who fear
you are not friends, they are people who will bite back the second they can.

However, what I'm not sure of is whether or not the US government is actually
as the majority of Americans want it. It is a democracy after all. I realize
that democracy is distorted by money and vested interests, but TBH, given what
we know today about all that, surely the American voter cant use that as an
excuse any more. All those nasty lying attack ad campaigns, the distortion of
facts, etc.... we all know how that works. So, surely Americans cant be swayed
by that sort of thing? Would it not be a bit daft to know you are being
manipulated, but still go along with such manipulations? So, cant people vote
smart?

I dunno.... Its all a bit of a mess.

Oh...... why so many enemies? Fear.

~~~
hga
We've got an entrenched ruling class that's very distinct from the bulk of the
county, who are remarkably inept, and who's interests are very much not those
of the rest of the country's. This includes the Republican Party
establishment, GOPe as some are starting to label it.

For more details, this article is the best initial exposition I've found,
"America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution", " _The only serious
opposition to this arrogant Ruling Party is coming not from feckless
Republicans but from what might be called the Country Party — and its vision
is revolutionary._ ": [http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-
ruling-cla...](http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-
and-the)

See also the expanded monograph: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Ruling-Class-
ebook/dp/B0040JHNZW](http://www.amazon.com/The-Ruling-Class-
ebook/dp/B0040JHNZW)

And the "revolutionary" bit, of an American nature, not at all in the violent
French tradition, explains why the TEA Party et. al. has to be suppressed at
all costs, and why the GOPe wasn't and still isn't interested in stopping it
per se (e.g. the IRS has not changed its policies). We are existential threats
to the GOPe, as e.g. Republican ex-Senator Richard Lugar knows as he's now
spending more time with his family.

~~~
hga
And the author weights in on the current NSA controversy:
[http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/06/23/the-ruling-class-
co...](http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/06/23/the-ruling-class-consensus-on-
domestic-spying/)

The author is an old school Cold Warrior, so I'm not dismissing his dismissal
of e.g. traffic analysis and the general utility of the NSA's current methods
out of hand, I'll have to read it carefully.

------
graycat
I suggest that, on the question prominent in this thread, "what should the US
do about terrorism and the claimed excesses of the NSA", there is now an
answer that is unavoidable, rock solid, quite clear, maybe crystal clear, even
if it does not address all concerns.

Here in logical steps is the unavoidable answer:

(1) Due to whatever in history before 1776, the US founding fathers gave us
the Constitution. Soon they gave us the Bill of Rights. In particular we have
the Fourth Amendment.

(2) Congress, the FISA 'court', the Intelligence committees of Congress, the
president, the NSA, etc. may have done this and that, but there are claims
that the Constitution has been violated.

(3) Law suits are being brought claiming that the Constitution has been
violated. Apparently there will be suits from Google, EFF, and the ACLU, and
there's little to stop more suits from being brought. It appears that quite
generally lots of lawyers will be burning midnight oil, word processing,
filing cases, etc.

(4) Very likely some of these law suits will make it to the steps of the
Supreme Court, be taken in by the court, studied, argued, and decided. If the
Constitution has been violated as clearly and strongly as it is easy to guess
from the recent news, then the court will likely strike down at least some of
the laws that enabled the violations. Really, for this process, nothing can
stop it now -- not the president, the NSA, the FISA court, Congress. People
can argue this and that, that we need what the NSA has been doing or we don't,
but still the Supreme Court will take this issue and address it.

(5) The founding fathers made sure that the Supreme Court was not just a bunch
of kids playing tag on a playground. Instead the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the
US) is about as serious as anything in this solar system. The court is
absolutely, positively 100% aware of the Constitution, their role in defending
it, and threats to it. Arguments of short term expediency, the threats of
Boston loser wackos with backpacks with pressure cookers, Jihaders with
chembio in public places, or well funded efforts to sneak a nuke into a major
US city will not be seen as repealing the Bill of Rights or even one comma in
the Constitution. And the SCOTUS is just awash in power, both in principle and
in practice, to strike down as unconstitutional whatever parts of the Patriot
Act, the FISA court, etc. they conclude, with considerable study and wisdom,
is appropriate.

The process of (1)-(5) has now started and will move forward "with all
deliberate speed" which might be 1-2 years.

In simplest terms, the SCOTUS can, yes, understand the threats of terrorism
but can understand with much greater concern the threats to the Constitution.
The SCOTUS has no choice but to pay essentially all their attention just to
the threats to the Constitution.

It's the process: The Executive branch is supposed to follow the laws and,
really, can't change the laws. If the laws are too limiting for the important
work of the Executive branch, then have Congress pass some new laws. We did
that. If the new laws are unconstitutional, then bring suits before the SCOTUS
to have the unconstitutional laws struck down. We're now in the process of
doing just that. The SCOTUS has to protect the Constitution and can't change
it. If the Constitution needs changing, then that's 2/3rds of the House,
2/3rds of the Senate, and 3/4ths of the states.

So, in 1-2 years we will know. The smart money is on the Constitution coming
out whole. And the chances of an amendment to the Constitution are as usual
from slim to none.

So, where will the SCOTUS defending the Constitution leave Congress, the
Executive branch, the NSA, the FBI, local police, etc.? They will have to put
their thinking caps on and find ways to protect the US from the Jihaders
within the Constitution. Or the Executive branch will find more ways to
violate laws and/or the Constitution, and then there may be more leaks, law
suits, etc.

Whatever, and it may take time, in this mud wrestling the Constitution stands
to come out whole. Thank you founding fathers.

Did the founding fathers see this coming? Absolutely. Been there; done that;
got the T-shirt, 200+ years ago.

Or, we need to defend the US. One of the best parts of the US is the
Constitution. So, it is logically impossible to defend the US and trash the
Constitution. Instead, in defending the US, it is in particular necessary to
defend the Constitution. For also defending the rest of the US, that's a
problem we have to work to solve; I have no doubt at all we can solve it.

In simple terms, the problem is not finding ways within the Constitution to
stop the Jihaders. Instead, the problem is stopping intellectually lazy,
empire building bureaucrats and CYA politicians from using the Jihader threat
as an excuse to trash the Constitution, build empires, and CYA.

~~~
robomartin
I am sure you meant well but I found your write-up somewhat scattered and
lacking a logical conclusion supported by prior points. This is easy to do if
one is writing with passion. I've done it too.

If your point is that we will ultimately be protected by the Supreme Court, I
think you are wrong. This is the same Supreme Court that enabled Obamacare, a
law that allows the Federal Government to force every american to buy
something. And, if you don't or don't pay a penalty the IRS will come after
you. Beyond that, this is a law virtually nobody read and, per Nancy Pelosi we
had to "pass it to find out what's in it". I can't remember a greater
perversion of authority in my adult life.

I am sure there are other examples but IANAL.

~~~
jarrett
There is a stark difference, though, between a law which merely (allegedly)
distorts economic behavior, and one that affects privacy. The former is only
vaguely addressed in the Constitution, in the form fo the 9th and 10th
Amendments, and even then the Commerce Clause gives the federal government
much power in this arena. The latter, however, is very specifically addressed
in the 4th Amendment, and there is no catch-all like the Commerce Clause that
would undermine it.

~~~
robomartin
True enough. However, something like Obamacare has the potential to cause both
massive economic destruction and massive violations of privacy. I mean, the
government --the IRS!!!-- will have access to your health data. Sit down and
think about what they could learn about anyone by connecting the dots between
your Internet, phones and health databases as well as those of the people
connected to you. I don't see much good coming from this. I hate to take a
paranoid stance but I sure feel, rightly or not, we are living through a pole
shift. Our country is being mutated into a beast few of us might recognize as
the USA in the future. This really saddens me. I hope I am wrong.

~~~
graycat
You see clearly, like seeing Godzilla rising from the East River and about to
come ashore. And you are 100% correct.

"All we need is another man like Richard Nixon again" \-- sung to the theme
song of 'All in the Family'. So, Tricky Dicky had an "enemies list" and wanted
to use IRS data. If he had had IRS data, NSA data, CIA data, FBI data, and
Obamacare data, we might not have a country now.

------
D9u
Denying the right of "We the People" to know what is being done in OUR name is
anathema to the ideal of "the consent of the governed."

Unfortunately there are many who believe that because of the ethnicity of the
POTUS he can do no wrong. I spoke to a neighbor yesterday who is a staunch
Obama supporter and he parroted the Cheney line completely. When I mentioned
the Bill of Rights he justified the spying as a necessary evil.

If the 4th Amendment is to be abrogated then it should be amended to reflect
the current state of affairs.

There goes that fabled _" Moral High Ground,"_ again...

If the government was _really_ concerned with our safety alcohol would be
outlawed. Compare the statistics regarding deaths attributed to _" terrorism"_
and deaths attributed to alcohol.

~~~
jbm
Can you specifically mention what "ethnicity" the president has that prevents
criticism of his behavior?

------
philliphaydon
I wonder if we will see a non-corrupt America within our lifetime.

~~~
hga
That's way too binary of a wish, there hasn't been a "non-corrupt" America
pretty much ever. I mean, go back and look at the Hamilton-Burr feud, or the
etymology of gerrymander:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Etymology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Etymology).
The guy signed the Deceleration of Independence....

It's more a matter of degree, and pervasiveness. By many measures we're still
a largely uncorrupt nation, but I find it difficult to believe that if what's
happening at the top isn't stopped that it won't filter down a whole lot.
Although e.g. the Japanese are an example of a largely uncorrupt people with
eternally "corrupt" rulers, going back many centuries.

------
teeja
I guess I no longer need to pretend that Obama is pretending to be an a-hole
in order to get re-elected.

------
aspensmonster
>But R. Scott Oswald, a Washington attorney of the Employment Law Group,
called the Obama administration “a friend to whistleblowers,” saying it draws
a distinction between legitimate whistleblowers who use internal systems to
complain of wrongdoing vs. leakers, who illegally make classified information
public.

Jesselyn Radack, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Peter Van Buren, and William
Binney didn't seem to think that those "internal systems" were effective.
Judging by their treatment, I can't blame Edward Snowden for not deciding to
become another body amongst foundations.

~~~
hga
At a less dire level, look at the early Obama administration treatment of
_Inspectors General_ (IG, try
[https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+inspector+general&oq=o...](https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+inspector+general&oq=obama+inspector+general)),
i.e. the guys who's official job it is to expose problems. We're pretty sure
that's why the IRS IG didn't even do an investigation, just an "audit"
(really), with unsworn testimony with people's supervisors in the same room.

Anyone who makes this " _a friend to whistleblowers_ " claim is simply not
living in the same universe I am.

------
spitx
This is Bill Clinton speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative - whose spouse,
from all accounts, will most likely be running for the office of President in
2016 - on NSA Security Leaks and Snowden.

    
    
      "They (NSA) have prevented a very large number of harmful actions"
    
      "I don't see any alternative to trying to track all these groups 
      around the world who are trying to wreck the ordinary operations
      of life in America and probably kill a lot of people. I am not 
      persuaded that they (NSA) have done more harm than good"
    

In an increasingly uncertain world, the opinion among most American leaders
and figureheads, on either side of the aisle, about the need for increased
domestic and international surveillance, has already calcified.

For better or worse, they are overwhelmingly in favor of it. The debate being
precipitated here and in mainstream media is largely symbolic.

It is time for privacy advocates to leave their dens and organize formally (
as in politically ) to advance their agendas. Washington only understands
political clout whether it is a PAC or a lobby group.

Grassroots organizations will always go the way of Occupy Wall Street without
formal leadership and a political consensus - lots of Zuccotti drama and
nothing to show for it except for your obligatory iconic pepper spray photo.

You can mobilize politically in formal ways or bask in the warm glow of all
the emotional outrage being voiced now and get your iconic photo spread.

Guess what?

The riots in Brazil have one too:

[http://25.media.tumblr.com/a3b0bc19184f467fb7a70a2df6ee81a5/...](http://25.media.tumblr.com/a3b0bc19184f467fb7a70a2df6ee81a5/tumblr_molaxlscWT1r44q44o1_1280.jpg)

and nothing will come off those riots either. Wanna wager a candy bar?

Let's check back 3 months from now and I bet things will have gone back to
where they were without any concrete action taken and the crowds going back to
their usual quotidian lives.

Source:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-JdjIxjeUs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-JdjIxjeUs)

~~~
hga
Clinton is the same guy who tried to press us into using key-escrowed
encryption systems like the Clipper Chip
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip))
and his IRS was notorious for auditing anyone who committed personal, in your
face _lèse-majesté_. You mention his wife, she of the "vast, right wing
conspiracy"; these are not people who've _ever_ been good on these subjects.
For that matter, not that it wasn't largely bipartisan to begin with, but the
reason the PATRIOT Act passed so quickly in such detail was it was a wish list
left over from Clinton's administration, where it had been pushed without
success.

~~~
mpyne
You may not like Clinton but _tons of people do_. Ignore that at the peril of
the political goals you try to advance.

But either way, the point is that Clinton's opinion is going to be a decent
bellwether as to the general opinion. I think spitx is right on target on how
to advance change (or at least, what to avoid).

~~~
hga
Sure, "tons of people do", they're by definition part of the problem, since
they explicitly or implicitly support these types of thuggishness, as long as
it's directed at their enemies.

We on the other side mostly want to be left alone. Their side isn't willing to
do that, which is why we're sliding towards a hot civil war.

