I have no doubt that there are those who think that this is an outrageous violation of civil liberties and the freedom of the press. However, I also have no doubt that the Republican party doesn't give a wit about civil liberties. Certainly they don't care about the privacy of the media and that it work free of intimidation. How can I say this? Well, look at their history. The GOP is the part of Joe McCarthy, Robert Bork, and John Ashcroft.
In the wake of the Boston bombing they were calling on targeting Muslims again. However, one more thing tells is they have no problem in principle with what the DOJ did: they previously demanded they do what they ended up in fact doing.
"If you're wondering why the Department of Justice has been paging through two months' worth of various Associated Press journalists' phone records, you have to cast your mind back to the Spring of 2012."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/republicans-doj-ap_n_3273153.html?1368550033
I can't say I'm at all surprised. Not even a little bit. If the GOP hadn't gone down this road I'd be shocked. This is why the investigation that Darrell Issa wants to launch won't be constructive but just about trying to make this a story about the President-and other Democrats-and nothing else.
In the wake of the Boston bombing they were calling on targeting Muslims again. However, one more thing tells is they have no problem in principle with what the DOJ did: they previously demanded they do what they ended up in fact doing.
"If you're wondering why the Department of Justice has been paging through two months' worth of various Associated Press journalists' phone records, you have to cast your mind back to the Spring of 2012."
"Back then, the news was brimming with all sorts of exciting stories on the national security front. The AP reported in May that the CIA had "thwarted an ambitious plot by al-Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen to destroy a U.S.-bound airliner" using "an upgrade of the underwear bomb that failed to detonate aboard a jetliner over Detroit on Christmas 2009." And The New York Times, in June, reported that President Barack Obama had "secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities."
"The AP story, to the minds of critics, offered al Qaeda insight into the fact that the CIA was aware of the group's activities. And the Times reporting on the U.S./Israeli cyber war with Iran was full of details that had never previously been disclosed."
"The timing of these disclosures seemed rather suspicious to Republicans, 31 of whom sent Attorney General Eric Holder a letter asking him to "immediately appoint a special counsel to investigation [sic] national-security leaks from the executive branch," The Hill reported.
“The numerous national-security leaks reportedly originating out of the executive branch in recent months have been stunning,” they wrote to Holder.
“If true, they reveal details of some of our nation’s most highly classified and sensitive military and intelligence matters, thereby risking our national security, as well as the lives of American citizens and our allies. If there were ever a case requiring an outside special counsel with bipartisan acceptance and widespread public trust, this is it,” they wrote.
"The upshot was that the GOP believed Obama was using strategic leaks to burnish his national security cred in an election year. (This was not an unreasonable thing to infer, frankly.)"
"But, with that in mind, Alex Pareene makes a similarly reasonable judgment that the GOP will probably not be too quick to jump on this DOJ probe of the Associated Press writing, "It will be hard (but not impossible!) for Republicans to act hugely upset and offended about this one."
"Good thing he tossed in that "but not impossible" qualifier! Because as Zeke Miller and Michael Crowley report, Republicans are going to give it a go:
“Whether it is secretly targeting patriotic Americans participating in the electoral progress [sic] or reporters exercising their First Amendment rights, these new revelations suggest a pattern of intimidation by the Obama Administration,” Doug Heye, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, said in a statement to TIME. “The First Amendment is first for a reason,” added Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner. “If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation.”
Miller and Crowley note that this is "a particularly surprising response." Not if you're relentlessly cynical! Otherwise, yes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/republicans-doj-ap_n_3273153.html?1368550033
I can't say I'm at all surprised. Not even a little bit. If the GOP hadn't gone down this road I'd be shocked. This is why the investigation that Darrell Issa wants to launch won't be constructive but just about trying to make this a story about the President-and other Democrats-and nothing else.
Sort off topic here, but speaking of privacy and security I find it amazing that Rand Paul suggested a class action suit against the Government. Why does any Republican allow this guy in their party? I'm a Democrat and can’t believe this guy (not thrilled with Wyden or Udall on the Left either).
ReplyDeleteSo what is my point: Simple, if we as Americans want to enjoy our continued existence then we had better start fighting for it. How? I would maintain that we begin by embracing what was core to the Democrats and their forefathers, the notion of Federalism. We are stronger united, be it in war, in business, or in taking care of each other!
The anarchists, privacy hacks, xenophobes, and isolationists ignore the fact that there are nations, states, and actors out there that either wish to do us harm outright, overpower us into submission, or incorporate us into their fold.
There is simple proof as to why they are all wrong: WWII and China.
After WWI and prior to WWII the United States became what Rand Paul wants now: isolationists. And this way of thinking, that somehow we did not have to be interconnected with the powers of the world, several of which, such as Germany, Japan, Britain, France, and even the Soviet Union, were united in their causes and willing to go to great lengths to ensure their way was the single thread by which the word balanced upon. Through military and economic might they controlled vast portions of the planet and its resources. They annexed or colonized countries as they desired and when their leaders, especially the ones in Germany and Japan decided it was their manifest destiny to rule everything around them, they struck to devastating effect.
The United States on the other hand sat back. No colonies, no war. We struggled with alcohol addiction, the Great Depression (as the others did as well which probably helped to hold of WWII for 5-10 years), and coming up with a definition of our American Identity. When World War broke out in Europe we sat back then as we do now regarding Syria-Paralyzed by the what ifs and the consequences that come with war.
For those that believe we have become an evil empire whose Federal Government wants only to have a Stasi-like grip on the populous I say look at who we were on December the 6th of 1941. Where were the colonies? Where was the dictatorship? Who were we on December the 6th 1941?
The United States as it existed then was an appeaser, content with arming England and trying to influence Hitler to abandon his madness and Japanese their thirst for new land, and new resources.
And then Came Pearl...We did not ask to be attacked, our policies, religion, politics did not threaten anyone. We bled, and not even on our own soil but overseas on the soil of a place that was yet to become a state. We had been isolationists, gentlemen, and now we were in a World War. The war to end all wars--That we won, America, Won. Our blood, our resources, our united and federalist government. I only wish that all of our people could have been considered stakeholders at the time instead of celebrating them decades later during "Black/Asian/Hispanic heritage months".
(Part 1 of 2)
(Part 2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteAfter winning, we were the strongest, most prosperous nation on Earth. We were gracious as well. We learned the lessons of Versailles and rebuilt and repaired the nations we warred with. We were not alone of course, the Soviets were there too and they did not see things the same way we did. But that led to a balance-fear of the Soviet Union--led to that balance. And for almost 50 years that balance held.
And then the Wall Came Down. Not a bad thing of course, a good thing. But as it is said nature abhors a vacuum and I would argue that form of nature is human. Since we could walk we have warred and we have and will war again. But the question now is this: What side will we be on? The winning side or the losing side? It's not as clear cut as one might think this time around. There is still no balance. And 2000 years of homogeneity and anger towards the west combined with incredible intellect and power can mean only one thing: We will war with China. Hopefully we do not, or hopefully it is another cold war fought by proxies and not with nuclear weapons. But the Chinese, specifically in this case, the Chinese Government has waited generations to be on top and soon they will be-- we have assured that through our own idiotic policies that put wealth before country. I am thankful that President Obama is there, because I believe he sees the threat, he has been bold enough to say so in the media. Whereas I can only imagine a President Romney would have continued the "fire sale" started by Nixon, and accelerated by Reagan.
There are valid reasons to fear the Chinese Government; they are resourceful, intelligent, powerful, ancient, patient, and ruthless in defending their way (Tibet, Tiananmen Square). But they already know this and are undoing us by holding back.
Which brings me back to Rand Paul, Wyden, Udall, the Anarchists, the Right Wing Conspiracy Theorists (Beck, etc.), and the paranoid among us who have learned to fear and hate the government either because they are pawns or because they wish to lead pawns. Either way, China understands this and simply waits in the shadows for the young man to become old, for the strong man to become feeble, for the wealthy man to become poor. They watch and wait for the right moment to strike. And we allow this to be the case. We decry threats to our personal freedoms and yet blithely follow what the church says, what our leaders accuse, what the media reports, what the savvy say, and purchase what the conglomerati demand us to. We are sheep bleating in the wind believing that we can control the wind or the earth beneath our feet which we perceive as the threat, when in fact is our bleating that is the threat.
We should remember that we are powerful when we stand together as a nation and should embrace Federalism and the Government when it comes to our safety. Who will take care of us when the storm clouds of war strike us if we will not take care of ourselves now? As it was said by Lincoln inspired by Jesus Christ: A house divided cannot stand. Does anyone truly believe that dictators, sheiks, businessmen, or a nation such as China will really protect your freedom? Or that by tearing down these United States, turning us against the government, will somehow guarantee that your guns will not be taken away? Or that your right to free speech will endure? As President Obama rightly said: You cannot be one hundred percent free and one hundred percent safe. If you truly believe that your personal freedom outweighs my safety then we have a serious problem. Not only as brothers in a house becoming more divided, but certainly as brothers whose house is being torn down piece-by-piece by those that wish to do us harm.