Anyone But Giuliani
I'm with Josh. No potential outcome of the 2008 presidential election scares me more than the prospect of Rudy Giuliani becoming president. Obviously I'd prefer a Democratic victory, but there's something about Giuliani that terrifies me in a way that Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain don't.
In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Giuliani has an insanely long article (almost surely ghost-written) laying out his foreign policy views on basically everything. The article only reinforces my belief that it is imperative that this man never be allowed anywhere near the White House.
Here are some of the highlights:
On Terrorism
Instead of referring to the Global War on Terror, as Bush calls it, Giuliani repeatedly uses the phrase "the Terrorists' War on Us" (with capital letters!). Maybe you can get away with that in a stump speech, but in a supposedly scholarly article it just sounds juvenile and dumb. Is this really what he expects the war to be called from now on? Can you imagine veterans telling their grandchildren what it was like to fight in the Terrorists' War on Us? Can you imagine visiting the Terrorists' War on Us Memorial? It sounds like a toy store, for crying out loud. And every time I read it, I picture Rudy delivering the line Malcolm X style ("we didn't land on the Terrorists, the Terrorists landed on Us").
Just so you know I'm not exaggerating how dumb this sounds, here's an actual excerpt from the article:
And later:
On the Lessons of Vietnam
Giuliani endorses the crazy revisionist "stab in the back" theory of the Vietnam War:
On Diplomacy
Giuliani:
I'll save you the suspense, though; he's not referring to Reagan's decision to illegally sell lots of weapons to Iran. That inconvenient fact was long ago sucked down the Republican memory hole.
On Anti-Americanism
In perhaps the weirdest paragraph in the article, Giuliani warns:
But remember everyone, Barack Obama is very reckless and naive about foreign policy. Not like Giuliani, who is very serious and sober.
In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Giuliani has an insanely long article (almost surely ghost-written) laying out his foreign policy views on basically everything. The article only reinforces my belief that it is imperative that this man never be allowed anywhere near the White House.
Here are some of the highlights:
On Terrorism
Instead of referring to the Global War on Terror, as Bush calls it, Giuliani repeatedly uses the phrase "the Terrorists' War on Us" (with capital letters!). Maybe you can get away with that in a stump speech, but in a supposedly scholarly article it just sounds juvenile and dumb. Is this really what he expects the war to be called from now on? Can you imagine veterans telling their grandchildren what it was like to fight in the Terrorists' War on Us? Can you imagine visiting the Terrorists' War on Us Memorial? It sounds like a toy store, for crying out loud. And every time I read it, I picture Rudy delivering the line Malcolm X style ("we didn't land on the Terrorists, the Terrorists landed on Us").
Just so you know I'm not exaggerating how dumb this sounds, here's an actual excerpt from the article:
America and its allies have made progress since that terrible day. We have responded forcefully to the Terrorists' War on Us, abandoning a decadelong -- and counterproductive -- strategy of defensive reaction in favor of a vigorous offense. And we have set in motion changes to the international system that promise a safer and better world for generations to come.Yes, that plan we've "set in motion" is working like gangbusters. I feel safer already. Glad we're no longer following a counterproductive strategy.
And later:
The Terrorists' War on Us was encouraged by unrealistic and inconsistent actions taken in response to terrorist attacks in the past. A realistic peace can only be achieved through strength.Are you saying we brought this on ourselves, Rudy? I seem to remember Ron Paul getting viciously attacked for saying essentially the same thing Giuliani says here . . . by Giuliani.
On the Lessons of Vietnam
Giuliani endorses the crazy revisionist "stab in the back" theory of the Vietnam War:
America must remember one of the lessons of the Vietnam War. Then, as now, we fought a war with the wrong strategy for several years. And then, as now, we corrected course and began to show real progress. Many historians today believe that by about 1972 we and our South Vietnamese partners had succeeded in defeating the Vietcong insurgency and in setting South Vietnam on a path to political self-sufficiency. But America then withdrew its support, allowing the communist North to conquer the South. The consequences were dire, and not only in Vietnam: numerous deaths in places such as the killing fields of Cambodia, a newly energized and expansionist Soviet Union, and a weaker America. The consequences of abandoning Iraq would be worse.Needless to say, this is not the lesson of Vietnam, and anyone who thinks that it is has no business being president.
On Diplomacy
Giuliani:
Diplomacy should never be a tool that our enemies can manipulate to their advantage. Holding serious talks may be advisable even with our adversaries, but not with those bent on our destruction or those who cannot deliver on their agreements.So we can't talk to the Iranians. They are Evil and "bent on our destruction." Indeed, we've apparently been at war with them since 1979. In the next paragraph, Giuliani says that--in dealing with Iran--"the next U.S. president should take inspiration from Ronald Reagan's actions . . ."
Iran is a case in point. The Islamic Republic has been determined to attack the international system throughout its entire existence: it took U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979 and seized British sailors in 2007 and during the decades in between supported terrorism and murder.
I'll save you the suspense, though; he's not referring to Reagan's decision to illegally sell lots of weapons to Iran. That inconvenient fact was long ago sucked down the Republican memory hole.
On Anti-Americanism
In perhaps the weirdest paragraph in the article, Giuliani warns:
Too many people denounce our country or our policies simply because they are confident that they will not hear any serious refutation from our representatives. The American ideals of freedom and democracy deserve stronger advocacy. And the era of cost-free anti-Americanism must end.I have no earthly idea what that means. Are we going to bully people into liking us? That seems likely to work.
But remember everyone, Barack Obama is very reckless and naive about foreign policy. Not like Giuliani, who is very serious and sober.
posted by A.L. at 9:41 PM
65 Comments:
When speaking about Giuliani's serious foreign policy side, always include this picture:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/ap/4a9eed1a-6b7d-4ef0-8c45-e0f68294c7ea.hmedium.jpg
I think the Giuliani threat is over-rated. By that I mean his chances of actually winning (If he WERE somehow elected, that WOULD be catastrophic).
I just can't imagine him ever persuading anyone outside the core of the Bush kool-aid mob and among those, his abortion/gay rights views are anethema.
He is, however, a natural leader for this group:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/generation-chickenhawk-t_b_56676.html
with essentially identical credentials. I could see any one of the kids from that convention in the Jack Black role from "Bob Roberts", which everyone should watch again.
Diplomacy should never be a tool that our enemies can manipulate to their advantage.
What a very strange way to view the world: We should be skeptical about diplomacy, because it can so readily (it appears) be used against us. But illegal practice of preemptive invasion and occupation should be maintained at all costs, when that is precisely the thing that our enemies are using against us.
Completely devoid of reason.
Giuliani "terrifies" you more than all of the other GOP candidates. Why? He is socially liberal. More so than any other Republican running for President and more so than many of the Democratic candidates. Giuiliani is arguably to the left of the Democratic field on gay marriage, gun control, abortion, and the separation of church and state.
Your issues with Giuliani are with foreign policy. But, again, what is so objectionable?
(1) First, you criticize him for supporting a shift in anti-terrorism policy from "defensive reaction in favor of a vigorous offense." Ok, but why? You say such a strategy is counterproductive -- without indicating in what way. What would you suggest instead?
(2) Second, you criticize his observation that many historians today now believe that by 1972 US policy had turned the corner and that the US pullout of Vietnam was accomplished in such a way as to result in the Cambodian killing fields, an invigorated Soviet Union, and a weakened America. Your critique, however, is solely "this is not the lesson of Vietnam, and anyone who thinks that is is has no business being president." Where is the substance behind this critique? It sounds like you are saying that Giuiliani got the lesson of Vietnam wrong just because you say so.
(3) Third, you take Giuiliani to task for indicating that he thinks negotiation with Iran would not be effective. Do you really disagree with this statement? And Giuiliani does not rule out negotiation with Iran, he merely states, "Diplomacy should never be a tool that our enemies can manipulate to their advantage. Holding serious talks may be advisable even with our adversaries, but not with those bent on our destruction or those who cannot deliver on their agreements." This indicates that if Iran demonstrated a change in policy, and indicated that they were not "bent on our destruction" or that they coudl "deliver on their agreements" than he WOULD negotiate with them. What's wrong with that?
Finally, you critize Giuilani's statement that "The American ideals of freedom and democracy deserve stronger advocacy" as weird. What's so weird about that?
Giuliani seems like a naturally attractive candidate to any liberal voter who disagrees with the surrenderist-wing of the Democratic Party. What is so terrifying about that?
9/11 was an inside job - used to create a culture of fear that covered up the stolen 2000 election, rallied the nation against an essentially nonexistent enemy, ane enabled the rest of the criminality of this administration - including the looting of BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS from the federal treasury.
If Rudy somehow "wins" (re: steals) 2008, it will just be proof that those that enabled/created 9/11 are still in control.
That is what scares me the most.
I wouldn't be too terrified of Giuliani.
Bush was able to get the whole of middle America to vote for him, I'll say, because he hit on the religious note, and came off as a 'good ole boy'. Giuliani has neither of these Characteristics going for him.
What he has to say is definitely scary, but I wouldn't worry about it any more than I would a cracked out homeless person rambling on the corner.
BTW, I'm new to the blog but enjoyed the post. I'll come back.
From TPM:
As TPM Reader DC puts it, Giuliani combines Bush's foreign policy genius with Clinton's sexual impulse control.
That about says it all.
Giuliani "terrifies" you more than all of the other GOP candidates. Why? He is socially liberal. More so than any other Republican running for President and more so than many of the Democratic candidates. Giuliani is arguably to the left of the Democratic field on gay marriage, gun control, abortion, and the separation of church and state.
Oh please. Just last week, Giuliani was disavowing support for civil unions. He won't lift a finger to support gun control (I promise you). And he's promised to appoint "strict constructionist" judges. So it's hard to see how a Giuliani presidency would be better than any other Republican presidency on social issues. Plus, other than appointing judges, presidents don't have much impact on these issues.
Giuliani scares me for a whole host of reasons. First, I think he would adopt the Cheney/Addington/Yoo approach to the rule of law and would care very little about legal or constitutional restraints on his power. In his billion word article he doesn't even mention the phrase "civil liberties." I also think Giuliani would approach politics in the Karl Rove tradition. He's mendacious, into with partisan point scoring, and would continue to politicize and cronyize everything he touches. And I think Giuliani's foreign policy would be reckless and arrogant, basically the Bush administration on steroids.
First, you criticize him for supporting a shift in anti-terrorism policy from "defensive reaction in favor of a vigorous offense." Ok, but why? You say such a strategy is counterproductive -- without indicating in what way. What would you suggest instead?
Actually, I was criticizing him for suggesting that we've "set in motion" some awesome strategy to improve the situation. I'm all for "being on the offense" in some generic sense, but the military strategy we've pursued has been counterproductive and Giuliani thinks it's going great. I don't want a president who thinks the current strategy is going great.
Second, you criticize his observation that many historians today now believe that by 1972 US policy had turned the corner and that the US pullout of Vietnam was accomplished in such a way as to result in the Cambodian killing fields, an invigorated Soviet Union, and a weakened America. Your critique, however, is solely "this is not the lesson of Vietnam, and anyone who thinks that is is has no business being president." Where is the substance behind this critique? It sounds like you are saying that Giuiliani got the lesson of Vietnam wrong just because you say so.
Not because I say so. But because that's what everyone who isn't trying to revise history to blame Vietnam on liberals thinks. This whole "stabbed in the back" theory of Vietnam is CYA revisionist bullshit. Vietnam was an utter disaster, as strategically misguided as a war can be. Thousands of Americans and Vietnamese died for no reason. The idea that if we had just stayed longer, we would have "won" is convenient fiction for those who want to absolve themselves of blame for supporting misguided policies. And the whole Khmer Rouge angle is utter claptrap. We empowered the Khmer through our actions during the war. And they were eventually stopped by the very Communist government we fought in Vietnam (and we supported the Khmer in that struggle). I don't have the time or energy to run down every reason why I find this revisionist version of history vile and contemptible, but I do, and the fact that Giuliani believes this garbage utterly disqualifies him in my opinion.
Re: Iran, I think Giuliani perpetuates the same destructive notion that merely talking with our enemies is so sort of concession or reward. That's a totally unhelpful approach to foreign policy. Talking is just talking. It's not a reward for good behavior. And as Casual Observer notes above, it's hilarious that people like Giuliani are so concerned with diplomacy being used as propaganda, when they seem utterly obviously to the propaganda value of things like, say, invading Iraq or torturing people or throwing detainees in a legal black hole in Guantanamo Bay.
Finally, you critize Giuilani's statement that "The American ideals of freedom and democracy deserve stronger advocacy" as weird. What's so weird about that?
Nothing is weird about that. It's the next sentence that is weird. Giuliani says "the era of cost-free anti-americanism must end." What does that mean? Is it a threat? Is he going to go harass the people of Europe until they like us better?
Giuliani is a disaster waiting to happen.
Since when do president's have little impact on gun control, gay marriage, separation of church and state and abortion?!? That's news to me. Just focusing on one recent president, I would cite the Brady Law, the Assault Weapons Ban, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Defense of Marriage Act, and the appointments of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer as Presidential actions that had MAJOR impact on those issues. And that's just one president.
As for the other Giuiliani criticisms, many of them strike me as "gut" or "feel" type reactions. He's "reckless," "arrogant," "mendacious," and he "cares little" about civil liberties. Not many of these criticisms hone in on specific policy positions.
I think that your Giuliani opposition is somewhat similar to the current conservative infatuation with the former mayor. Despite his remarkably liberal record, conservatives like him because he seems mean, acts like liberals are scum, and treats them dismissively.. He has a good conservative attitude -- even though he is a poor conservative. Liberals have the opposite reaction for the same reasons. He feels conservative even though he isn't. He is sort of the inverse McCain. Conservatives hate McCain even though he is rather conservative, because he is always cozying up to liberals. Liberals like him, because of the cozying.
Since when do president's have little impact on gun control, gay marriage, separation of church and state and abortion?!? That's news to me. Just focusing on one recent president, I would cite the Brady Law, the Assault Weapons Ban, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Defense of Marriage Act, and the appointments of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer as Presidential actions that had MAJOR impact on those issues. And that's just one president.
And here's what will happen during a Giuliani administration. No gun control laws will be passed or even considered (you know this is true). There will be no attempt to repeal DOMA and no endorsement of civil unions. Giuliani will replace both Stevens and Ginsburg with Roberst/Alito type judges.
Maybe Don't ask don't tell will be repealed, but I wouldn't count on it.
Moreover, despite how they're trying to position themselves now, I don't think Romney or Thompson are much different than Giuliani when it comes to their personal beliefs about these issues.
Giuliani's "social liberalness" won't make much of a difference. He'll still be constrained by Repubilican electoral realities, and will do very little if anything to advance social issues (indeed his court appointments will likely set them back considerably). So it's not a particularly compelling reason to support him, particularly given how scary he is on every other issue.
Hawk,
If it is your position that just another year, or three, or five, would have won Viet Nam, then say so. Having lived through that period as well as having read about it since then, all I can say is that you and I are basing our opinions on totally separate histories. I am convinced that mine is directly tied to reality.
Re: Guliani and respect for the constitution, he has convinced me in his comments that he may well have less regard for the Bill of Rights than Bush has. As one example, when asked what he thought about the power of any president to arrest and hold indefinately an american citizen without charge and without process, he punted--i.e. he said he'd have to get his lawyers to look into that issue.
These kinds of statements show an ignorance of constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, and a lack of commitment to them.
liberal hawk,
you've got some impressive shuck-and-jive in you, if you don't mind my saying: you're criticzing a.l. on the points he concedes, and then coming to much the same conclusion.
Giuliani leaves us no choice but to respond to him in a "gut" way, since his appeal is entirely "gut." There are no real policies to criticize, only postures, and as for the issues where he's indicated a liberal bent in the past, I'd agree with a.l.: from a legislative/policy perspective, I wouldn't hold my breath.
I've actually heard him speak in more depth about this "American advocacy" issue -- the whole "answer our critics" bit -- and it is, like much of what he says, silly. He wants our ambassadors to be more assertive in the face of anti-American criticism. He really is talking about sound-bites. Because I think we all agree, the world could use a little more "did not/did so."
Giuliani is the guy who said that the president has the power to indefinitely detain a US citizen, though he would use this power infrequently.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2FiNjU1ZGY5Y2NiY2EyOWIyY2Q2ZWUyNmJlZmQ2NzE=
there really ain't much else to say after that. if the candidate does not understand he does not have such power (nor should), he simply is not fit to be president.
p.s. unfit, and terrifying.
AL,
I agree with you that Giuliani is constrained by certain electoral realities, but consider the Reagan example. While Reagan certainly campaigned as a social conservative -- as President he ultimately delivered very little to the social conservatives on issues like abortion, church/state, etc. Sure he nominated Scalia and promoted Rehnquist, but he also nominated O'Connor (the darling of liberals today) and Kennedy (the author of Lawrence v. Texas). Giuliani is running now as more of a moderate, and we have every reason to think that once secure and elected he can veer back to the left on social issues.
I recall a certain president, a Mr. Lincoln, who not only said that the president had the power to indefinitely detain US citizens, but actually DID detain US citizens indefinitely.
CO,
On Vietnam revisionism I am somewhat torn, but the abandonment argument has gained some scholarly currency recently. Maybe the best treatment I have seen on the matter is Max Boot's Savage Wars of Peace, which I would recommend on the topic.
yes, and said president lost his case in the supreme court. further, said president was fighting a civil war that had torn apart the union, while the current occupant is concerned about indefinitely detaining a wanna-be that's a few cans short of a six pack.
I recall a certain president, a Mr. Lincoln, who not only said that the president had the power to indefinitely detain US citizens, but actually DID detain US citizens indefinitely.
He did so during insurrection. I hope you read your history better than you read your constitution. Why, Hawk, do you hate the constitution so? Why do you hate my civil liberties?
From Atrios:
While I'm not sure if this fact will help Democrats win any elections, it must be understood that much of the world is about 14 months from relegating the US to "crazy belligerent drunk uncle" status - a powerful and dangerous nuisance - rather than the largely benign hyperpower they we're happy to pretend we were for awhile. The election of Rudy! would pretty much seal that fate.
but the abandonment argument has gained some scholarly currency recently
As do all self-serving revisionist histories once memories of the actual events begin to dim. This phenomenon has also been aided by a desire among many to justify our continued presence in Iraq. If Vietnam could have been "won" if we'd just stayed longer, then by God, we should stay as long as it takes in Iraq. We can't let those damn liberals stab us in the back again.
CO,
On the contrary, I love the constitution, and would hate to see any of its provisions violated. In that spirit, can you point out to me which of your constitutionally-granted civil liberties have been violated? Or maybe the civil liberties of your friends? Or family? Or anyone you know?
Also, regarding your focus on insurrection, I think its fair to ask whether terrorism carried out in the United States against the United States might in the minds of the framers back in the 1780s have been considered a form of insurrection? One problem that the administration and its critics have struggled with is how to fit something not well contemplated by our laws and constitution into those laws and constitution.
This effort undoubtedly will produce disagreement -- but I don't see why it needs to produce insults like your above post.
AL,
With Vietnam, it was not necessarily a question of winning, but perhaps better managing a defeat. It certainly did not have to be done the way it was done -- with hundreds of thousands of south vietnamese slaughered, chaos and communist-slaughter in Laos and Cambodia, and the reinvigoration of the Soviet Union.
Were there not better available outcomes?
AL,
This NYTimes article on politics in India's classrooms is one example that would seem to counter Atrios' drunk-uncle theory: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/world/asia/15india.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
nominated O'Connor (the darling of liberals today)
Nobody would call her a "liberal", nor is/was she a "darling" of the liberal wing. But she does stand as a reference point regarding how far the court has moved to the Right--when a Reagan judge is seen as a "liberal darling".
Hawk, our 4th amendment rights have been violated by FISA violations, criminal removal of process and Habeas. I am not the supreme court nor a lower judge, so my position clearly does not have the force of law.
Victims: "The Terrorists' War on Us"
Victims live in fear and trepidation.
CO,
Re O'Connor -- no she was not a liberal, but the Senate Dems at the time of her retirement fell over themselves praising her.
Re vioalted rights -- you did not answer the quetsion. You said "our 4th amendment rights have been violated by FISA violation . . ." That would be the collective, undifferentiated "our" but I asked you if you could specifically "point out to me which of your constitutionally-granted civil liberties have been violated? Or maybe the civil liberties of your friends? Or family? Or anyone you know?"
Should I take that as a no?
Getting back to Giuliani, rather than "Liberal Hawk" and his desires to engage in revising history, the plain and simple fact that scares a lot of us is that Giuliani has deliberately made himself attractive to the RWA element in the US electorate by his militaristic and authoritarian stances on security issues.
Just like George Bush.
Also, he is courting the religious right by trying to portray his "social liberalism" as only a convenience he had to adopt in order to get elected, nudge, nudge, wink, say no more, in NYC. He has openly stated that he would nominate right-wing judges to the courts.
Just like George Bush.
His history of government in NYC indicates that he'd surround himself with trusted aides, given them enormous freedom, and otherwise be a narcissistic empty suit.
Just like George Bush.
His personal life is a tale of amoral excesses and blatant abuse of authority and position both to enable them and to avoid being penalized for them.
Just like George Bush.
Anybody else got any questions as to why we might agree with A.L. that he's the worst of the lot of pathetic wannabees slavering after the GOP nomination?
by "our", I mean yours, and mine.
CO,
A fourth amendment violation does not occur as an abstraction. Some government agent has to do something. Well -- what did they do to you?
"In that spirit, can you point out to me which of your constitutionally-granted civil liberties have been violated? Or maybe the civil liberties of your friends? Or family? Or anyone you know?"
i think this represents the fundamental problem with the current authoritarian-leaning mindset of some americans. "hey, if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry." it is crucial to protect the civil liberties of all americans, even the worst of us. the beauty of our system is that we don't trust the government, no matter how slam dunk of a case it may have. due process produces transparency, which prevents government excess. i worry about the civil rights of people like padilla, not because i think he is a nice guy, nor because i think he is innocent. i worry about them because as soon as we begin to allow the government to slide on the positive limitations placed upon it by the constitution, the more power it will try to accumulate. my liberties are not threatened now, but allowing the government to cut corners on other people builds precedent and inertia towards despotism. i am reminded of the poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Nerpzillicus,
I think you need to revise that a bit. First line should read:
First they came for the Terrorists,
and I didn't speak up becuase I wasn't a Terrorist.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
actually, if i rewrote it myself, my first line would read
they came first for anybody the administration said was a terrorist,
and i didn't speak up because the administration had not said i was a terrorist.
Touche, nerp.
Hawk,
I cannot be secure in my person, my papers and my effects if these things are in fact not secure. The administration's actions in wiretapping and other forms of surveillance without warrant have caused this insecurity.
CO,
Is your stuff not secure? Did you catch federal agents rifling through your person, papers, and effects? Do you really think the gov't is going to listen to your telephone conversations?
Hawk, the government has already admitted, many times and in many ways, that they have conducted warrantless surveillance. What I personally think they have done is beside the point. They have admitted surveillance without warrants. Their admission, and their claim to have the legal authority to continue doing so, by definition means that my personal effects and papers are no longer secure from unwarranted government surveillance. This abridges my rights under the 4th amendment.
I agree completely with Kevin Drum (and James Joyner!).
Hawk, is it really your position that as long as we haven't personally been subjected to illegal surveillance (as far as we know) that we should all just STFU? That's crazy.
I realize you like Giuliani, but even conservatives (see link in previous comment) realize that Giuliani is a bit of an authoritarian. He has aggressively defended the worst of Bush's excesses in this regard and in his entire billion word policy piece, he doesn't even pay lip service to the need to respect the constitution or protect civil liberties. Given his history as mayor and his public statements, there is literally no reason to believe Giuliani would govern differently that Dick Cheney in this regard. And that's scary.
AL,
My point is this, first we must acknowledge that in order to counter threats to the country, whether they be terrorists, or foreign governments, we must resort to some curtailment of civil liberties, allowing the government to engage in certain types of surveillance and other actions.
At the same time, we want to limit these incursions on our civil liberaties as much as possible -- give the gov't what they need, but no more.
If you accept this premise -- which I think most Americans do -- than the real key is determining how much civil liberties to give up.
By asking Mr. Observer if he can point to any personal examples, or examples from his friends/family, etc. I seek to demonstrate that the current absuses complained of have no real-world impact on our civil liberties.
I have seen nothing in my day-to-day life and have seen nothing reported in the media or the blogosphere suggesting that such curtailments are taking place. Which is again why I call for examples.
As long as the gov't isn't tapping phones in order to bug their political opponents (a la Watergate, and RFK in the 1960s) and as long as law-abiding citizens are not being harassed by their government, than these hypothetical or conceptual rights violations which Mr. Observer is worried about, are meaningless.
You would think that with all of the complaints to date that we would have some real world stories about being gettting carted off. I've seen nothing like that.
LLH,
Even if one accepts your premise that we have SEEN nothing like that (innocent people getting carted off), and that if such a thing were to happen, we actually would see it (which is surely not the case), you're still making a bit of a straw man argument, pretending as if the primary concern among posters here (poem's notwithstanding) is that we honestly suspect we are now being watched.
The primary concern, and this is something we HAVE seen, is a fundamental violation of the basic system of checks and balances (and oversight) according to which we expect our government to run. I wager to say that most commenters here would be far more inclined accept a certain curtailment of their rights in the face of terrorism -- some rifling of papers here, some strip searches there -- if in exchange we could be assured that the agency conducting those searches were subject to some oversight and/or leverage on the part of some other agency.
In other words: just get a fucking warrant, W, and feel free to do so after the fact. Just show me that someone somewhere had to make an argument before someone who wasn't bought and paid for. Just obey the law. Show some respect for the law. Show some respect for what others here have called the genius of our system, which is that we trust no one, and that our constitution is the most marvelously cycnically conceived document in world history, premised as it is on a complete distrust of human nature.
Every time you ask the question "but have you seen abuse?" the subtext is: sometimes in emergency situations, we have to trust the authorities.
Let the subtext of every response we revealed: No, we don't.
Hawk,
I completely agree that it's about finding a balance.
But my point is that everything I know about Giuliani suggests to me that he would tip the scales heavily in favor of government power and against civil liberties.
And I think your attempt to minimize what is currently happening is naive and ethno-centric.
You ask for examples friends and family having their rights violated. But the whole point of modern state surveillance is that it's done in secret. Why would you ever know that your communications were being intercepted? These things are snatched right out of giant centralized relay switches, there's no need to resort to bugs or break-ins.
Moreover your "this isn't happening to people I know" attitude reaks of ethno-centrism. You're not worried because you are pretty sure the government is focusing on Muslims. But if you are of Middle-Eastern or South Asian descent, and particularly if you do any communicating with friends or family overseas, I'd bet the fear is much more real.
Maher Arar, a software engineer, was abducted at JFK Airport and shipped off to Syria to be tortured. He was later cleared of any wrongdoing, but only after spending months in a squalid foreign prison without any contact with the world.
Jose Padilla was kidnapped in Chicago and disappeared. He was held incommunicado for years and badly abused by interrogators.
A huge percentage of the people in Guantanamo were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and have subsequently been released (often after spending years there).
You're not worried about that happening to you. But trust me that many law-abiding Americans are worried, and justifiably so.
Also what Brux said.
Hawk, you ignorant slut.
Research the Padilla case. Research the court findings that have found government surveillance activities illegal. Research the abductions of innocents and their torture at secret sites abroad, including but not limited to Gitmo. Research why the entire upper management of DOJ was ready to resign in protest several years ago.
Just because it hasn't happened to you personally, or to your family, does not make it "hypothetical" you pathetic ewe.
Fortunately for you, others will fight for your constitutional rights, even though you will not. This is due to the fact that when your rights under the constitution are violated, or mine, or persons who we do not know and have never met, it effects all others who enjoy those same constitutional rights.
This post has been removed by the author.
Guys,
First of all, Brux, getting a warrant sometimes is too slow a process. That's why in the criminal law there are numerous exceptions. Now if we have exceptions for chasing down drug dealers, don't you think we should have a few exceptions for trying to stop terrorists? The rules have to have some play.
AL -- of course the surveillance must be conducted in secret -- I mean should we announce to the terror suspects, "excuse me, we are going to monitor you now." The good thing is that the legal methods used to accomplish the surveillance is relatively out in the open. The worst civil liberties due to gov't surveillance examples I can think of, historically, were the FBI abuses of the 1960s, carried out for political purposes. But nobody suggests that Bush or anyone is secretly bugging the Democratic Party or anything like that. Something like that would concern me.
Second point, AL, and I'm sure it was not intentional, but I resent the "ethno-centrist" charge. Where does that come from? First, it is premised on innacuracy. I do, in fact, frequently communicate with friends over seas -- including in the regions you highlighted, and including on subjects like TERRORISM, something that might trigger some sort of government listening machine. I'm not worried not because I "think the government is focused on Muslims", I'm not worried because I think the government is focused on terrorists. Is there overlap in that category, of course. But a lawabiding Muslim, living in the US has nothing to worry about.
And none of you have demonstrated otherwise. Your two examples, Padilla and the other guy are not enough. First, the jury is still out (literally) on Padilla. Second, let's say Padilla and the other guy were mistreated and their rights were violated. Are you telling me that while engaged in a global war on terror the government must have a 100% perfect success rate when it comes to the civil liberties issue? In a country of 300 MM people, I think making TWO civil liberties mistakes is really not all that bad.
CO,
You obviously have nothing beyond insults to contribute so you get no response.
LLH
the reason why you have seen nothing in you day-to-day life suggesting curtailments of liberty are taking place is because we do not know what the government is doing. we don't know if they are tapping the phones of their political opponents, we don't know if they are creating "enemies lists," we don't know if law-abiding citizens are not being harassed. padilla may be a law abiding citizen, but no one knows, because for five years the administration prevented him from exercising the rights it is prohibited from infringing. the administration has hidden programs, operated away from oversight, and invoked "state secrets" privilege every time it could to prevent anybody from knowing what it is doing. this is not the kind of government intended by the framers. the people cannot be secure if they do not know what the government is doing. who really is a law abiding citizen at this point? whoever the president says is a law abiding citizen! he believes he can unilaterally declare any person an enemy combatant (and so, apparently, does Giuliani), and no court or legislative body can check or review this power. even if you are correct that there are no current abuses of power (not bloody likely), do you seriously not see the danger this path leads to? one man deciding who is entitled to their rights, and who isn't? the president has shown a pattern of not asking for power, but asserting he has it inherently. Giuliani has likewise demonstrated support for this "strong" executive theory. what is the point on debating what balance we should make between our civil liberties and security, when the president (or Giuliani) believes he can unilaterally strike his own balance? what worries me about Giuliani is not just that he seems to have an authoritarian streak, where he would want the federal government to increase surveillance and cut back on rights too sharply, but that he seems to agree with Bush that the federal government consists of an executive branch that can opt not to listen to the other two.
Hawk,
Your cowardice is contemptable. Grow a pair. Has bin Laden frightened you so thoroughly? During the 1812 war, no rights were revoked by our government, even when the British sacked DC and burned the White House. They didn't feel required to lie to the American people. Do you truly believe we are in greater danger now than we were then, when foreign armies were on our soil, and enemy fleets on our only coast?
Surely those who lived through that war would find your argument weak, and cowardly. Freedom is wasted on you, that you'd give it up so easily, and with a frightened whimper.
LLH,
"warrants take too long" is a facile reply. Surely you are aware that all proposed legislation on this matter has included provisions that would permit the administration to get its warrant AFTER it surveils.
But again, the point isn't to inhibit the government's capacity to track down terrorists. No one wants that. We simply, as patriotic Americans, want to broaden the range of accountable officials who are party to the surveillance, so that if and when someone does make a mistake or overstep or cart off one of your innocent friends, that friend is able to defend him/herself, and we, as sympathetic observors, are able to hold those parties accountable - in the public forum, at the ballot box, in the courtroom, whatever. What's most important is that the administration understands that WE are watching THEM. You seem so completely unbothered by the fact that we cannot do this now, you are so quick to fall back on rote logic ("But how can they spy if we all know what they're doing?"), I've begun to suspect that you don't actually believe the things you've been writing this morning. I think you're like one of those college professors who plays dumb just to get the kids talking, in which case, well done, but I might suggest you change your handle from LAST LIBERAL HAWK to DOUCHEBAG'S ADVOCATE, cause that's what I feel like I'm dealing with here.
Hawk,
I don't know how you can say stuff like--"But a law abiding Muslim, living in the US has nothing to worry about"--when you read cases like that of Maher Arar, a totally innocent man, who was disappeared and tortured.
The whole point is that the government makes mistakes and it oversteps its authority. Without oversight and accountability, abuse occurs, always.
And even if you believe that no abuse is happening right now, history shows us that it will inevitably happen if there is no oversight. If you are just allowed to do whatever you want in secret, abuse happens.
If we just followed the "if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" philosophy, we wouldn't have any laws or oversight procedures at all. We'd just trust our leaders to do what's right. But that's not the system of government our founders envisioned. It's not what this country is about.
A.L.,
A slight correction, if you will: what history taught us is that abuse occurs, always, whether there is oversight or not (see, for example, Iran-Contra). The lack of oversight just means it doesn't get caught until much later, if at all, as in the example of the FBI under Hoover.
"LAST LIBERAL HAWK" my eye - "YET ANOTHER AUTHORITARIAN" is more like it.
He completely gives the game away with his ludicrous "Lincoln detained citizens" statement. Only an authoritarian would present the choice of keeping civil liberties and supporting Abraham Lincoln as an either/or proposition. The idea we can consider Lincoln a great leader without mindlessly supporting everything he did or putting him completely above criticism never enters his head.
Same thing with saying "the jury's still out" on Padilla. Yeah, denying his constitutional right to a speedy trial - oops! Just a single "mistake". And never mind that none of the people responsible for Padilla's situation have been held accountable or anything. For YAA, it's 100% deference to the authorities, and 0% sympathy to anyone the system grinds up.
-L-
AL,
I have no earthly idea what that means.
You generally strike me as a cynic. But read this:
The American ideals of freedom and democracy deserve stronger advocacy. And the era of cost-free anti-Americanism must end.
then this:
"We've got to do it the American way," Giuliani said during a town hall forum in Rochester, New Hampshire. "The American way is not single-payer, government-controlled anything. That's a European way of doing something; that's frankly a socialist way of doing something."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/giuliani.democrats/index.html
IMHO, clearly the first quoted statement is a threat, not only to "anti-American" leaders and peoples around the world, but those here at home too. And who gets to decide who is anti-American? Giuliani, of course.
A.L. said:
"And even if you believe that no abuse is happening right now, history shows us that it will inevitably happen if there is no oversight. If you are just allowed to do whatever you want in secret, abuse happens."
To me, this is the most important point. The old saying is true: absolute power corrupts absolutely. Bush may just be going after the terrorists for now, but giving these powers to the government is like leaving crack in a crack-addicts room. Its impossible to resist at some point.
And come on Hawk. Most reasonable democrats are willing to give reasonable surveillance powers to the president. But thats not what Bush/Cheney want. They want total power based on the principle that they deserve total power, and that congress should go shove it.
How can you not see this? How can you call yourself a liberal and throw yourself in with this crowd that so blatantly wants to turn the entire American system upside down and shake it until it cries for mercy?
But back to Guliani, the man has no chance at winning. In the end conservatives want a president who has a sitcom-perfect family. Guliani's personal history is so ridiculously bad. I can't see conservatives voting for someone whose own children won't even support him.
I also wanted to comment on Guliani's "cost-free anti-Americanism" comment.
I definitely think its pointed at those dissenting Americans at whom the Ann Coulter crowd loves to yell "treason!"
Guliani is saying that "costs" should apply to "anti-americanism". That sounds like a veiled attempt to say that those who criticize the military or America should be labeled treasonous. Absolutely batshit insane.
Reason # 5 million why Guliani is unfit to be president.
All,
Back to our civil-liberties debate. I tried to consolidate my thoughts here: http://www.lastliberalhawk.com/2007/08/civil-liberties-and-terrorists-call-for.html
Most of you will probably disagree with this take, but I am curious as to what you think of my third-way suggestion.
LLH
Giuliani is the most libertarian candidate to have a shot at the GOP nomination since Goldwater. Perhaps that's why he scares liberals so much. They know a "socially tolerant" Republican who is Pro-Choice is extremely dangerous in a general election.
Liberals have tried to paint the GOP as totally beholden to the Religous Right for years. Now, here's solid proof that the GOP is turning more libertarian.
That's like a nightmare scenario come true for the Left.
Libertarians for Giuliani at:
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Giuliani is the most libertarian candidate to have a shot at the GOP nomination since Goldwater. Perhaps that's why he scares liberals so much.
Ha ha ha. Funniest thing I've read in a long time. Look, whatever you want to say about Giuliani, he is about as far from a libertarian as you can be. On the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum, Giuliani is about as far toward the authoritarian side as anyone out there today. Liberals aren't scared of him because he's "socially tolerant," they're scared of him because he's an authoritarian nutjob with crazy foreign policy views.
Do you even know anything about Giuliani? This is the guy who, as mayor, started ticketing jay-walkers and people whose pets poop on the sidewalk? Whatever the merits of such policies, they are decidedly non-libertarian.
And if Giuliani is such great libertarian, it's strange that actual libertarians hate him so much. For instance, Radley Balko at Reason Magazine highlights an totally awesome Giuliani quote:
"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
Ah yes, "freedom is about authority." Now there's a libertarian mantra if I ever saw one.
The long form of this comment got swallowed, so I'll retype it quick: YES, Hawk, I have friends and family whose civil rights have been violated by the Reagan/Bush/Bush judges and Bush II's legislations. I have an aunt whose nerve endings in her hand were destroyed (thru repetitive stress) by her job; she was fired, denied disability, and had (like her co-workers) most of her pension seized from under her; after years of legal hassle, she was forced to settle for almost nothing when Bush II legislation eviscerated her right to sue. I've had friends who were homeless (part-time employed or lost work when arm was broken) who were hassled out of the right to linger/sleep anywhere in public. For that matter, I have a friend-of-a-close-friend who spent years in jail on what was later proven a false charge, yet he was given no compensation for his time spent in prison; neither Bush nor Giuliani had a darn thing to do with it, but the suffering of the people randomly sent to Guantanamo is not abstract to me.
On the other hand, I never knew Amadou Diallo. So I guess I can't learn anything about Giuliani from how he handled that man's death.
Oh - I also have friends who voted for John Kerry in 2004 by provisional ballot. Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse is the best, though far from the only, clearinghouse of evidence that my friends' votes were tossed vigorously away, along with seven million others. That's a rights violation.
Palast, a BBC/Guardian journalist, was threatened with arrest for filming a "Critical Asset and Vulnerable Infrastructure Point" (one visible, he says, on maps.google.com). I don't think he was arrested, but AP's Bilal Hussein, a photojournalist disliked by the right, is still being jailed without charge, 16 months after his arrest.
Hawk,
You forgot a step. After consolidating your thoughts, flush.
Be very afraid.
Rudy tried to run NYC as if he were a tinpot dictator. He is intolerant of dissent, convinced of the rightness of everything he does, unwilling to apologize or even recognize mistakes... The list does go on.
A Giuliani administration would be like Bush&Co on steroids.
The Last Liberal Hawk wrote:
"Second, you criticize his observation that many historians today now believe that by 1972 US policy had turned the corner and that the US pullout of Vietnam was accomplished in such a way as to result in the Cambodian killing fields, an invigorated Soviet Union, and a weakened America. Your critique, however, is solely 'this is not the lesson of Vietnam, and anyone who thinks that is is has no business being president.' Where is the substance behind this critique?"
For substance (including a partial reading list), see my entry posted on Slate here:
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/231393.aspx?ArticleID=2172285
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home