Asymmetrical Information

My sense is that the Republicans are slightly better. The Republicans will trample civil liberties for a few specific causes - war, terrorism, drugs, abortion. The Democrats will trample civil liberties for pretty much any cause that strikes their fancy. As P. J. O'Rourke said, the Republicans will despoil the environment, trample civil liberties, put widows and orphans on the street, in pursuit of a profit. The Democrats will do these things for fun.

In particular, the Democrats will do much more damage to any sort of financial privacy than the Republicans will, and financial privacy makes it easier to preserve one's other liberties.

"Okay, so I care about civil liberties."

I assume this is supposed to be heard (by the mind's ear, Anony) as read in a tone of mild surprise and wonderment. Where, precisely, in the past, after commenter after commenter has pointed out these precise sorts of concerns, was your voice? Curiously silent.

I realize you came out against the torture in Abu Ghraib, but exactly how much credit do you want for that? And I assume that not talking about Gitmo is synecdoche for not talking about the torture memos. (I've yet to see a well-regarded lawyer defend the legal reasoning in the memo; apparently, Posner's son and another U Chicago law professor did, but the document has mysteriously disappeared from the Internet). And of course, you aren't talking about the "outsourcing torture" clause of a bill before Congress that had the Democratic half of the blogosphere up in arms - again, curiously silent.

Which leaves us only with Hamdi and Padilla, two American citizens whom this Administration believed it could detain indefinitely and without resort to counsel (see for some details: http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html, though probably too leftist a group for you to trust). Hamdi, FWIW, was so dangerous that we let him go to Saudi Arabia after forcing him to (a) renounce his citizenship (not clear at all that this is legal, but who cares) and (b) agree not to sue the US gov't (but why would that happen - his 3 year detention was so well founded). And the collective ho-hum from the Bush supporters is precisely when I started feeling actual fear about another Bush term. But maybe an egregious breach of the Sixth Amendment isn't a serious enough issue to trouble you.

Vote for Bush, Jane. You don't want to be the last Republican (or "Republican leaning independent" or whatever) to desert Bush; it's more noticeable. At this point, your vote for Kerry won't change a thing, and it'll cost you loyalty points down the road with Republicans.

How about some lawyers in the audience trying to convince me that one party or the other really is better than the opposition on protecting ordinary citizens from unwarranted government interference?

I'm a lawyer, and I think you're right. Both parties have been generally bad for civil rights, and neither shows much curiosity for how new technologies (linked databases, widespread use of public cameras, medical tracking, etc.) may further affect civil rights.

I expect to vote for Bush for war-on-terror reasons, but if Kerry wins I hope DC gridlock will put a lid on further legislative restrictions of liberty.

I'm not asking for credit for anything, Tim; I'm not running for office.

What I was trying to get at is that I'm interested in sweeping changes directed at the citizenry, not the government flailing around trying to figure out what to do with combatants fighting for a power that is not quite a state, but has clearly declared war against us; all the smart lawyers I know, except a few ACLU zealots, agree that that's a toughy no matter what side of the aisle they're on.

I'm against the outsourcing torture bill, and woke up my poor boyfriend at an unreasonably early hour to demand that he call his senator and representative about it (no one from New York is on the committee; he lives in New Jersey). I can't prove that I did so, of course, but I'm sure he'd be happy to write you a long, complaining email. (He agreed with you, by the way, that I should have made it explicit that the vote fraudsters were Republicans; I erroneously assumed that everyone knew who I was talking about when I mentioned the locations.) I meant to blog about it, but of course, you only see what I actually blog, not what I mean to. But if it eases your mind, here are other things that I care about that I haven't blogged about recently: oil prices, the risk tolerance of democratic vs. republican foreign policy, the Iowa electronic markets, Canadian reactions to prescription drug reimportation, the controversial provision IA39 in the new IASB accounting standards for the European Union, why conservatives should be in favour of a gas tax, my new recipe for gingerbread, whether or not birth control pills exacerbate acid reflux disease, and my plan to walk around New York wearing a Bush/Cheney t-shirt, if some blogger will volunteer to walk around Alabama wearing a Kerry/Edwards t-shirt, to find out just how polarised we are. As you can see, there is no grand conspiracy to hold back on topics that make the Republicans look bad, just my poor memory and attention span.

The torture memo I agree is bad, but as the administration hasn't enacted any legislation about it, it doesn't fall into the purview of what I'm talking about. Nor does deporting of illegal immigrants, who, terrorist or no, are here illegally, and thus get limited sympathy from me unless we're deporting them somewhere horrible or handing them over to a foriegn government to commit human rights abuses we don't want to sully our hands with directly. I'm much more interested in hearing whether, for example, my readers think that surveillance capabilities of authorities have been genuinely expanded beyond reasonable limits, or only, as many argue, updated to take new technology into account (for example, the "roving wiretaps" famously cited by many turn out, on examination, to refer to the unobjectionable practice of allowing a wiretap to move from a subject's land line to his cell phone when he does). Hamdi's renouncing his citizenship moves me very little; he certainly doesn't seem to have valued it.

Why so hostile, Tim? I feel I've always been pretty respectful of you, and I'm glad to have your sharp questioning in the comments section. Have I offended you in some way, that you feel a need to attack me personally?

Jane Galt wrote:

I'm against the outsourcing torture bill

Why? Have you read the language of the bill or looked at what it actually does or have you just bought into the “outsourcing torture” meme that’s been thrown around without much challenge? Sort of like the meme about how the Patriot Act meant that the government was now going to be snooping through your library records.

I’ve gone through the language proposed in the bill and looked at which statutes it would modify and the worst that you could say about it, is that it applies the same standard that we use for exempting aliens from deportation to countries where they fear they might be tortured to the already existing standard that we use for exempting aliens from deportation to countries where they fear they might be in danger of loss of life or liberty.

On the balance, I support the new language as it (a) moves the decision-making from the Attorney General to the Secretary of Homeland Security and (b) it gives the United States more flexibility in not deporting an alien to a nation that might turn around and let them go.

http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues.html

Jane,

If you believe in maintaining our civil liberties, you need to be TERRIFIED of the Bush Administration.

>>>John Poindexter, head of the Pentagon's Office of Information Awareness, is developing a vast surveillance database to track terror suspects. The Total Information Awareness (TIA) system will, according to Poindexter, "break down the stovepipes" that separate commercial and government databases, allowing OIA access to citizens' credit card purchases, travel itineraries, telephone calling records, email, medical histories and financial information. It would give government the power to generate a comprehensive data profile on any U.S. citizen.
--Gene Healy, Cato Institute
http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-20-03.html

This of course, is the SAME John Poindexter was was charged with lying to Congress FIVE TIMES during the Iran-Contra scandal, so you see the lunacy of this endeavor. It's putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank's security.
Jane, there will be no such thing as privacy. Everything you do will be documented and filed, with NO GUARANTEE of the security of the data. The only group of folks who would be truly free would be the Amish, and other types who don't use any type of electricity.
John Ashcroft right now, through the Patriot Act, can declare you an "enemy combatant", and make you disappear, with no arrest warrant, no court date, and no contact with legal counsel. You can, like Padilla, end up confined "indefinitely."
As far as your t-shirts are concerned, you should be wary that your friend in Alabaman not visit a shopping mall, or a Bush rally, or that friend may find themselves ARRESTED.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0715-07.htm
...and here
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04/iraq.usa.shirt.reut/

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

--Cobra

Civil liberties is an important issue in the campaign but I fail to see where the Patriot Act, as has been alleged, is any grand design to limit our rights. Rights come along with responsibilities and one of our responsibilities as citizens is to help protect the homeland. We cannot expect those we elect to protect us if we deem any move that they make as a "violation of our civil liberties."

Tough times call for tough decisions and when the shit hits the fan do you believe that Kerry can stand in front of the country and rally us? It is not a question of if - it is a question of when. We will face another attack someday and for the next four years - if we choose the wrong person - the other items that are listed will seem small in comparison with National Security.

Vote Bush not because you are the last leaning Republican but because in your heart, in your soul, you cannot see John Kerry confronting those who wish us harm. Think Jimmy Carter only with a Boston accent - that is John Kerry!

Here's a good summary of H.R. 10 from humanrightsfirst.org, and a relevant quote on the "outsourcing torture" section:

Section 3032 would encourage the United States government to deport people to countries already determined to be likely to torture them.

Section 3032(a)(2) would apply to any person [who is about to be deported] ... due to criminal convictions or actions, past persecution of others, or a risk to [the] national security [of the USA], but is granted deferral of removal because he would be tortured if deported to a particular country. Section 3032(b) would require the Secretary of State to seek a “diplomatic assurance” from that country’s government that it would not torture the person, so that the person could be deported there even though an Immigration Judge had already determined that he faced a clear probability of torture if returned to that country. This requirement would apply to all cases where a person was granted deferral of removal—regardless of whether the United States would have any reason to trust the assurances of the government in question.

It may be one thing to allow deportation of a person at risk of torture based on diplomatic assurances from another government as an extraordinary measure, in limited circumstances where the U.S. government would have reason to believe that such assurances would be sincere and effective and where the U.S. would actually follow up after deportation to see that the person was in fact safe. It is a very different and dangerous step to turn the seeking of diplomatic assurances into a routine matter in any case where a person is granted deferral of removal under the Torture Convention. Very few governments, whatever their human rights records or true intentions, are likely to declare to the United States government that they would subject a person to torture. But by implying that obtaining such assurances would allow anyone covered by this section to be deported, Section 3032(b) creates a very serious potential for bad faith and willful or negligent blindness. Many countries with bad records of torture are also countries whose assurances in any other area relating to human rights the U.S. government would normally hesitate to believe—do we want to require the Secretary of State to seek diplomatic assurances from Cuba? From Sudan?

The link includes an analysis of the entire bill (which can be read in its original at the House's web site here).

Gunowners.org opposes H.R. 10 for totally different reasons.

PS: Yet another story about being arrested for wearing the wrong T-shirt at a Bush rally. What did this one say on it? "Protect our civil liberties." It's almost too ironic to be true, but the story isn't from The Onion, it's from Portland's news channel 8.

PPS: Of course, this being a family blog, Jane should clarify that she woke me up with a phonecall to insist that I call my representative to oppose the torture bill.

Civil liberties have already been effectively hamstrung in this country through the bi-partisan drug war and civil seizure atrocities. Ruby Ridge occurred under Bush I and the FBI obstruction of justice in the aftermath occurred with the full cooperation of Janet Reno and Bill Clinton. To watch U.S. strategy in Afghanistan threatened by the drug war follies (why, oh why, should Afghan farmers growing opium pose a threat to the U.S.?) leads one to believe that there is an infinite amount of idiocy in this Vale of Tears, and very, very, finite amount of common sense.

You pose an interesting question.

I suppose for me the best answer is hypothetical. If Bush is re-elected he has said he will appoint four Supreme Court Justices. If one of the four justices he plans on replacing is a "liberal," about 30 states are waiting in the wings with anti-abortion laws that kick in as soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned.

How will these laws be enforced? WIll doctors be fined? Imprisoned? Executed (as many of the most strident legislators advocate)?

What about the women who choose to have this procedure? Will they be criminalized? How?

Any enforcement of these laws will have to be executed by someone, and I suppose (like the drug war) the heavy lifting of abortion prohibition will fall to local law enforcement.

In any case, a right will be turned into a crime that is stunningly difficult to detect and, at best, unpleasant to arrest people for. I don't expect many people on any side want to see proudly disobedient Doctors' perp walks on the local news.

This is to say nothing of the seismic judicial shift that will be needed to resolve suits brought by all of the women asking for exceptions before they reach the second trimester, assuming some states make exceptions for incest or rape.

This is all speculative, of course, but not wildly so. Unlike Reagan and Bush 41, the criminalization of abortion is a key issue for George W. Bush and it will have to be ejudicated and enforced somehow.

Another doomed attempt at prohibition--especially one guided by the Christian Right--is unlikely to serve anyone with any respect for civil liberties.

I'd be interested to know what you think.

Democrats and in particular enviromentalists pose the far greater threat because they are taking people's private property away from them. You all must live in cities, because I can tell you don't even think about what is happening to private property out here in farm country. Grape growers such as myself are seriously afraid that we will lose the use of our property, and it is constantly being threatened. I spend 10 hours a week or so fighting it, as do most farmers.

Owning private property is the most basic civil liberty there is, and when you live off the land and someone does take it or threatens to take your use of it away, it is the same as stealing it. The right to freely participate in your own economic betterment or livelihood is so basic it doesn't even come up in the Constitution I suppose, but it is the basis for all other civil liberties. If you aren't eating you are not that worried about the government checking your credit card balances, you won't have a credit card at that point.

I think city people working in an office just don't understand what it is like to be under constant attack from extremist environmentalists. For instance, our planning dept here, first they put you through hoops for months on end, costing thousands of dollars, if you want to plant out a field for the first time. Then they say ok, but then oops, the Heritage Plant Society has just put a plant they found in the field on a watch list as an endangered species so you have to get a biologist to count how many are on your property and get them compared to how many are in the county. Turns out they can only do it in March or April due to flowering season, so you have to wait til next year to get them counted, and you may end up not being able to plant the whole field, or buy property or pay an extortion payment to someone else to plant some. And this historical society isn't even a government agency and the plant isn't even officially listed as endangered.

I could go on and on, we just went through a huge, terrible thing for two years where we were going to have to pull up plants along any stream (any place water flows and moves sediment, even two days a year) for up to 150 feet on either side of this "stream". One farmer told the environmental activist who pushed this into law that the stream setbacks she wanted on his property would cost him $1 million a year, and she just said, it has to be done. For what? On the theory that there would be less sediment in the river and therefore maybe more fish. For fish. It passed and became law, but then the citizens rose up and passed an initiative to throw it out. All of the environmentalists really pushing this stuff are not farmers, not landowners, mostly they are losers who suddenly get a lot of power pushing extreme environmental things because people are automatically in favor of them without thinking. It is like a religion.

This is the biggest threat to our civil liberties and it is entirely due to Democrats.

The only way I can explain to city people is if a law was passed to save the environment that you had to give up one room of your house or apartment, say 20% of the square footage, tear it out and plant native grasses, so that the harvest field mouse could live there. You could never so much as even walk in there, and you had to cage your dog and cat so they couldn't get in. If your dog got in there and peed it is a $10,000 fine per pee. If your cat got in there and killed a mouse it is $25,000 per occurance, and if three occurances happen it is six months in jail for you.

Plus, you make your livelihood off your house, so 20% less space means a 20% reduction in your income, which for many of you is the entire profit margin of what you are doing.

Farmers have gone to jail for filling in wet fence posts after a rain when water got around the post and the post was falling over---"destroying wetlands".

This intrusion into private property by Democrats is by far the biggest ongoing threat to civil liberties, the TIA thing, which didn't pass anyway, is Mickey Mouse next to this.

In any case, a right will be turned into a crime... I am curious about where exactly in the Constitution this "right" is enumerated.

I'm not worried about Roe vs. Wade. First of all, Congress will never confirm an anti-Roe justice. Secondly, many states would not immediately outlaw abortion even if they had the chance. Thirdly, of the ones that would, a good portion would have their laws overturned by their state supreme courts. There's nothing Bush can do in four years that will make abortion illegal.

I'm only a little worried about Kerry's medical care promises. He certainly won't get anything of consequence passed with a hostile Republican House and a divided Senate. However, if he happened to be in office 8 years, the makeup of Congress could change in that time. I don't think it's likely that the Dems could hold the Presidency and both houses of Congress, but stranger things have happened.

I'm not much worried about Social Security. I kiss that money goodbye every paycheck and never expect to see it again. I expect my taxes will go up to pay for either saving it or scrapping it. It would be nice to have the private retirement accounts that Bush talks about, but I don't expect that to happen. Not unless the Dems lose enough seats to stop a filibuster.

I'm not at all worried about OBL. Whether he's alive or dead, he isn't conducting terror operations any more.

I'm somewhat worried about Iraq. One thousand combat deaths is ridiculously low for any kind of conflict. The people will vote in January, regardless of how we vote. And Saddam Hussein is out of power. To me, that was worth the war. I don't think we should pull out as fast as Kerry wants to, but I don't think the Iraqi government will fall if we do. At least I hope not.

I'm very worried about Israel. I don't know if Krauthammer's theory that Kerry plans to throw Israel to the wolves to gain international concessions is true, but I'm certain that Israel will get less support from Kerry than it gets from Bush. Iran will have to be confronted, and the US and Israel need to be together when that day comes.

Jane, you should look at what issue matters most to you, and then evaluate realistically what each candidate could accomplish on that issue. Ignore what they say and focus on what they actually have the capability and the will to do. And let that guide your vote.

See you at the polls.

I'm a criminal defense lawyer, and I think both parties are just about equally bad when it comes to civil liberties. What mystifies me is the widespread support for Democrats among the criminal defense bar. Based on my anecdotal observations, criminal defense lawyers are FAR more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. When I point out to my colleagues the track record of the Reno Justice Department, or the fact that a number of the more egregious Supreme Court cases eviscerating the Fourth Amendment have been authored by "liberal" justices such as Breyer and Souter (sometimes drawing "pro-defendant" dissents from Scalia or Thomas), I get nothing but blank stares.

Jane:

Sorry for the spleen. This is one of the issues that bothers me most, and sometimes the anger runneth over. Part of my irritation is that you ARE the reasonable, centrist Republican, and I desperately want (more than a Kerry election) the centrist Republicans to take back their party. (I know you aren't a member of the party, but surely you can see a certain natural affiliation of beliefs). And if that's going to happen, if the party isn't going to remain in the hands of a fairly virulent group of ideologues, it'll be up to bright, well-read, connected people like you. (I'd include Mindles, but with his back, he won't be much help in the Great Struggle, so it's probably best to leave him on the ice flow and remember him fondly). I cannot begin to tell you how much I want this. Dems aren't going to win every election or argument, or even be right more often than not, so it is maximally important that the other side be a responsible thoughtful party. Which is largely how I think of you (and Mindles, back and all).

So it scares the bejeesus out of me when you wonder about who's better on civil rights (I'm speaking here about Bush, rather than Republicans). I would never, ever have imagined a world in which the Executive would assert the right to indefinitely detain (without access to counsel and without charges) an American citizen. AFAIK, we didn't do this when we had an enemy who could actually destroy us (the Sovs). It's got to be the very core of our freedom - the government can't imprison you just because. It absolutely, categorically has to give you some sort of due process. It has to explain and justify (and preferably publicly) why it's taking away your freedom. It can't just declare you an "enemy combatant," throw you in a jail, and decide the issue, what, 40 years later, when we decide the WOT is over. This isn't Miranda crap, or right to counsel stuff, or anything else. This is, "You can't just throw me in jail, I know my rights," stuff. If they can, what rights exactly are they talking about? (One of the reasons that the Hamdi citizenship issue bothers me so much is that it is easy to imagine anyone giving up his citizenship if the other option is eternal incarceration). Frankly, I don't understand why Republicans aren't more upset than Democrats about this - what better example is there of the coercive power of the state?

And if you press most of your attorney friends (particularly when they're drunk), they'll almost certainly admit that sometimes the law looks a lot like blank verse. It's mostly process - it often imports its context and substance from other fields, be it economics, philosophy, history, or what have you. It vitally depends on what people just know or believe, at some baseline level, is right or wrong. (Cf. Posner, IIRC, discussing how you write a decision by figuring out what the right result is, and then figuring out the law to get there). So it freaks me out when thoughtful, reasonable people don't freak out at something like the Executive assertion in Padilla. Because sooner or later, the issue is going to arise again, and those thoughtful, reasonable people from across the aisle are going to determine what we mean by right and wrong.

All of which is to say, if I occasionally seem piqued, it's because sometimes I think that YOU ARE THE LAST HOPE FOR SAVING AMERICA. (Well, you and Mindles. And I guess Drezner).

Poor boyfriend:

IIRC, you're a Dem of some sort. WTF? Two weeks before the election, with the host of problems Bush has, and she's still undecided? You must be a poor boyfriend indeed.

Hold up your end, friend, hold up your end.

Shell writes:

>>>I'm somewhat worried about Iraq. One thousand combat deaths is ridiculously low for any kind of conflict. The people will vote in January, regardless of how we vote. And Saddam Hussein is out of power. To me, that was worth the war. I don't think we should pull out as fast as Kerry wants to, but I don't think the Iraqi government will fall if we do. At least I hope not.

Huh? One thousand combat deaths is "ridiculously low for any kind of conflict?" I don't mean to break from the subject of this thread, but the 1108 service men and women who have been killed in Iraq, plus the 8000+ plus wounded maimed and irreversibly damaged is ABOMINABLE, especially in light of the ill-preparedness of the Bush Administration. The people laid up at Walter Reed Hospital, mostly of the marginalized, "non-investor class" can tell you about what war was "worth" to them.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/09/18/war.wounded.families.ap/

We're not even talking about the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead,or those wounded and contaminated by depleted uranium shell casings (http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm) because to many in America, Iraqi lives don't count anyway. IMHO, this was all a neo-con experiment from the Project for the New American Century years in the making,(http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000043.html) and a profit making scheme for American Corporate spiders.
I cite the following to support my statement:

www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2004/01/001564.html

In my opinion, NOT ONE AMERICAN SOLDIER'S LIFE is worth this fiasco, and certainly not the lives of innocent Iraqi men, women and children.

You can disagree with my theories on this war, and that's fine with me. But whenever somebody trivializes the sacrifice of American service people, and the needless loss of innocent life, I can't let it pass without comment.

--Cobra

I agree with Will Allen, but if Will believes that democrats, with their ranks filled with cops and prison guards, are going to risk all those union dues you are mistaken.

FWIW, I sort of count on the technobrats to save us from the sorts of issues that you are talking about. In fact, I thought that they had - I thought the Diffie-Hellman encryption scheme was unbreakable (if slow)? If any of the people with real knowledge know why we aren't now effectively protected on any digital media, I'd love to know (though it is entirely possible I wouldn't understand).

As for public cameras and facial recognition - I don't know that there's anything we can do about that at present, even if a private company wanted to try it. This isn't overreach by the govt., I don't think, but the absense of laws preventing it.

FWIW, I sort of count on the technobrats to save us from the sorts of issues that you are talking about. In fact, I thought that they had - I thought the Diffie-Hellman encryption scheme was unbreakable (if slow)? If any of the people with real knowledge know why we aren't now effectively protected on any digital media, I'd love to know (though it is entirely possible I wouldn't understand).

As for public cameras and facial recognition - I don't know that there's anything we can do about that at present, even if a private company wanted to try it. This isn't overreach by the govt., I don't think, but the absense of laws preventing it.

The dems are better on civil liberties. The Patiot Act needs alot of change, and Ashcroft has to go. Im amazed that so many dont have problems with cops using wire taps prior to getting a warrant, sneak n peak searches you may never know have taken place, and the ability to detain US citizens long after due process for a bail hearing or even a speedy trial has expired, are all full of room for abuse.

Roe v Wade may well be overturned if Bush were to have even two SC appointees. The fact is the reasoning on fetus viability that Roe v Wade is built on has vastly changed due to new technology. Its easy to imagine all post first trimester abortions being made illegal if the SC were to revisit Roe v Wade.

The Dems have been horrible on civil rights. They've voted against freedom of speech with the McCain-Feingold bill, and Ted Kennedy has enacted prior restraint against television news showing a documentary that criticized John Kerry.

If Kerry is elected, you will be denied the right to contract for medical services not approved by the government. Further, once he has destroyed the value of the dollar through his wasteful spending programs, he will enact exchange controls, and people in the US will find out how people in Argentina felt.

Computers, technology, and surveillance do not infringe your civil liberties, people do. Your civil liberties are best protected if law enforcement uses the best tools and technology to achieve security using the least amount of personnel. It is also much easier to control the budget and size of the police force then it is to control their use of law and technology. Since Kerry and the Democrats keep talking about hiring more police officers and about not having enough boots on the street, Bush and the Republicans are better for your civil liberties.

In all the spy TV shows, the same small cast of agents with perfect access to information can stop the bad guys and save the world every week. They have little time left over to infringe the civil liberties of innocent people.

I would never, ever have imagined a world in which the Executive would assert the right to indefinitely detain (without access to counsel and without charges) an American citizen.

Strike the word "executive" and replace it with "federal government" and how does the truth of that statement change in light of history? (And does it matter whether it is the "executive" per se, or just "federal government," so long as the abuse succeeds?)

With that edit in place, we may recall the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, whose mission was made notorious in the Senate by McCarthy, or perhaps the relocation and detainment of numerous Japanese-Americans during the second world war, or...well, fill in your own blanks, but suffice to say the US has endured difficult periods before, made some mistakes in the process, and generally steered for a better course with the benefit of hindsight. Perhaps what we are in now is another of those difficult times, but somehow it is difficult to share your apocalyptic view of events.

If one of the four justices he plans on replacing is a "liberal," about 30 states are waiting in the wings with anti-abortion laws that kick in as soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned.
....
In any case, a right will be turned into a crime that is stunningly difficult to detect and, at best, unpleasant to arrest people for. I don't expect many people on any side want to see proudly disobedient Doctors' perp walks on the local news.

Abortion is simply an action. Your views on what that action represents will of course be dicated by your perspective on life and morality more generally, but the key point to keep in mind is that we can and do pass laws to restrict actions every day, on the premise that restriction of some actions ultimately works toward the greatest level of mutual benefit and order.

Calling an action a 'right' does not make it so, although activists cursed by short-term thinking tend to like those sort of terms, because of all the connotative baggage it drags in the door with it. Longer-term, it is actually damaging to use that sort of strategy. First, it is damaging to the cause, because people who see through the ruse will be more likely to throw out any baby in the argument along with the bathwater because the arguer was dishonest. Second, it is damaging to the nature of rights themselves, because generally, most of us DO agree unquestioningly that some principles of existence are beyond the mandate of anyone else to take away; but when we get sloppy in our use of the term, trying to elevate actions to rights merely because we ourselves desire unfettered access to them, legitimate rights may get harmed in the backlash.

what do you say to those who think that Kerry and Bush are two sides of the same coin, that no matter what happens we can know with certainty that on Jan 21 2005 the guy in the white house will be a world-class stinker?

there are others running for the job...

"I'm not worried about Roe vs. Wade. First of all, Congress will never confirm an anti-Roe justice."

With the current makeup and rules of the Senate you're right. OTOH, the Republicans are speaking of legislation to change the rules to allow them to get that kind of justice by as long as there is a simple majority in favor, which the Republicans are all too likely to get. What then? Quite frankly I'm mystified by those who say that it's OK to propose something abhorrent as long as it won't pass.

I feel this way about the FMA, the Constitutional amendment that Bush claims would only ban gay marriage but doesn't really read that way. I've seen a lot of Republicans try to make light of what it means to part of our population by saying "Well, it's just political. It's not like it's going to actually make it.". It tells me a lot about the Republican party and quite frankly, our country, that it's so acceptable to limit the rights of gays. I can understand the attitude towards marriage, really. While I may hope that those attitudes change someday I understand where we are now. What I find less acceptable is the desire to ban civil unions as well. Also let us not forget that Virginia passed a law that a reasonable reading of would imply that there can be not only no civil unions but no private contracts or agreements of any kind that would give rights equivalent to marriage to a same-sex couple. This is small government? I live in a state that has already passed an anti-gay marriage amendment by an overwhelming margin so I'm a real minority, a straight male who supports my gay friends having the right to, at a minimum, have a civil union recognized by the state.

It was a Kerry staffer who said Sinclair Broadcasting "Better hope we don't win." Is this guy running for President or Godfather?

Further, once he [Kerry] has destroyed the value of the dollar ...

Cost of a euro in dollars:

Jan. 19, 2001: .9363
Oct. 21, 2004: 1.269

"...developing a vast surveillance database to track terror suspects."

Anyone who thinks the above is a bad thing....

But I'll take people seriously regarding their concern for civil liberties when they speak out against putting television personalities in prison for not telling prosecutors the whole truth about why they perfectly legally sold 4,000 shares of Imclone.

In the meantime, for those who profess to be small government libertarians, ponder these numbers. Tax Revenue as % of GDP:

1992.........17.5
1993.........17.6
1994.........18.1
1995.........18.5
1996.........18.9
1997.........19.3
1998.........20.0
1999.........20.0
2000.........20.9
2001.........19.8
2002.........17.9
2003.........16.5

Money-where-mouth-is-wise, I'd say the trend is clear for a libertarian.

I think the legal action against Sinclair Broadcasting regarding the film "Stolen Honor" is indicative. The monopole rule of civil liberties, "our side has them, your side doesn't" seems to be informing the Democratic political process these days. There are certain risks associated with having almost all the civil rights watchdogs being on one side.

For referance, can you remember the image of the SWAT guy pulling Elian Gonzalez from the arms of his uncle while pointing the MP-5 submachine gun at the kid?

Can you remember armored vehicles rolling through the burning compound at Waco?

I can, and as such, my confidence in the support of civil liberties by Democrats is not strong.

What bothers me most about Kerry is that he is one of the most opportunistic people I've come across. He has apparently been running for the presidency since he was in high school....

. The 3 purple hearts are a scam. Sorry, they just don't rate. Not when there are men and women who have lost limbs or are crippled, and not under the circumstances, which are cloudy at best.

.that he met with the North Vietnamese and VC is also a major cloud. This was a clear violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (art 104). It is probable that he received a less than honorable discharge, which was apparently revised by the Navy under pressure from Carter in his first month in office.

. He invokes aid from "allies" who have been clear in their intentions. More smoke.

. He has already upset our current allies.

. His policies seem to exist somewhere in the ether, but "he has a better plan".

He has been pandering terribly, and some of the things he has said have been pretty bad even in the heat of a campaign.

I'm not a Bush fan, but will vote for him only because I believe the man means what he says and does what he says he's going to.

Matt,

You trust a man who believes God speaks to him regularly?

--Cobra

Re Roe, I doubt that laws on the books in 1973 and invalidated by that decision would automatically come into force if it were overturned. I think there's a general presumption that laws that long in desuetude have to be re-enacted. There is no way that thirty states are going to outlaw abortion outright. I would be very surprised if two did. What you might see is states limiting abortion to the first trimester.

Cobra,

You trust a man who believes God speaks to him regularly?

Yes, obviously everyone who ever believed he was answering a "call" from God was a raving lunatic. A number of names on your side of the political spectrum come to mind, but no doubt you don't need me to list them for you.

J Davis, Mccain Feingold is a bipartison bill. And I dont see how freedom of speech for individuals allow groups of people to purchase as much political advertising as they want. Imo the less private money in the election process the better. Now Im not claiming to know how to fix campaign finance reform, but the garbage 527s are putting out there, without concern to the veracity of their claims, has everything to do with how ugly this campaign has been.

The problem with Synclairs broadcast of "Stolen Honor.." is that they were going to present 35 year old distorted, self contradicted information as "News". The reason they tried to label it "News" was to get around election laws as to balance in non-news broadcasts. When you look at Synclairs exclusively rep donations, and the use of parents and brother in laws as station owners to get around FCC laws, they should be looking at huge fines and law suits if they even show their scaled down version of this garbage.

What do you do when god tells Bush "No Casualities" but tells Robertson "a big mess with many casualities? I think its a clear sign god wants the evangelicals to vote Kerry...

P Laswell I agree Waco was a complete dem screw up. But the E Gonzalez thing lies at Jebs feet..

but suffice to say the US has endured difficult periods before, made some mistakes in the process, and generally steered for a better course with the benefit of hindsight.

And should we not learn from those mistakes? Not Bush, of course. He already knows everything.

I think anyone who looks at what Bush sought in the Padilla case must conclude that this Administration has no respect for civil liberties whatsoever. You doubt it? Remember, the Administration position even outraged Scalia.

Jane, the opinions are all the same. If the writer is a Demo, then all things Bush are bad. And vice versa. The only thing that is true is that all the parties are interested in one thing - more government regulation. Repubs want to cut out the demo regulations but install their own. And vice versa. And when it comes to incumbent protection like Mccain-Feingold, they will all vote for it. Don't worry. We are on the downhill roll right now. SS will be bankrupt in 7 years and the dissolution will follow soon after. I'm predicting 2025 at the outside where there is a civil war - maybe not military - that will definitely resolve for the rest of the century whether we are to be socialist or small government. So, if you believe like me that dissolution is imminent, the vote for Kerry or Bush doesn't matter. This election is just another step like Dred Scott.

It gets pretty chilly in Berkely upon occasion.

I will break up these posts to not overburden the reader, though the effort is likely futile. Not sure I could convince someone to get out of a burning building, even if their hair was on fire.

I am not sure that the Kerry plan will cause so much innovation damage – people (not necessarily the companies) in the drug development field are much less motivated by monetary figures than distinguishing themselves in their research (as Bill suggested in another thread). Also, this plan, by allowing our gov’t to negotiate prices, will lower our drug costs and potentially lower profits in the short term. But if the drug companies know they can no longer rely on the US as their cash cow, the next time France, Canada, or some other nation goes to negotiate prices, the drug companies will be far less willing to drop to marginal cost. As a result, their prices will rise, and other countries will begin to foot more of the R&D bill than they have in the past. Fairer for us, and it sticks the French with higher costs. What Republican wouldn’t like that?

As to other medical innovation:
Tests and procedures will advance for the same reason drug advances will be made by researchers: prestige. Devices may lag a bit, if, to control costs, hospitals and clinics actually band together to buy and use equipment. But this action should happen regardless of the plan. Medical dollars are not efficiently allocated within the industry today, especially for high fixed costs equipment.

All in all, I don’t think the plan will be long term detrimental to drug R&D, and is net neutral to other medical innovation.

In contrast, you have Bush (and Glenn Hubbard’s from a recent businessweek oped) bizarre plan for healthcare which is meant to do two things as far as I can tell: lower costs by reducing healthcare usage by forcing people to pay for more of their preventative care, and lower costs by capping the amount to be spent on catastrophic care. With the HSAs, people would be forced to pay for their regularly scheduled maintenance and any tests suggested with those visits. With a bigger stake in the cost, they will both go less often and require fewer “unnecessary” tests. Until, of course, they are incredibly sick after not having visited the doctor for several years, then the catastrophic care kicks in, up to some amount. Then the sick person goes into debt or dies. Dieing would be the less costly option. This expensive catastrophic care would be capped in costs by its coverage and paid for through employer and employee contributions.

Of the two plans, the Kerry one pays for and encourages preventative care, reducing costs in the long run. Bush’s plan reduces costs if more people die without taking advantage of healthcare (or go into enormous debt to pay for their care if they want to live).

Finally, I don’t think the Kerry plan will pass anyway. Like Clinton in 93-94 (though you have already discounted the analogy), I don’t think any Republican congress will allow a Democrat to establish such a popular and necessary program. They would merely have to hire Rove to outright lie or whisper campaign about how the plan is designed to kill poor black, white, or Hispanic people, and down it would go.

Now as to civil rights, I think the repubs have been significantly bad in this area over the past few years, and rather bad in the last twenty. I am not familiar with Breyer’s assault on the 4th amendment (Clinton’s changes, far as I could tell, were meant to allow different law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share information – while scary, these actions were short of Ashcroft’s power under the (un)patriot act). However, under Rehnquist with ample support from Scalia and Thomas, the right has steadily undermined habeas over the past 15 years (re: Lazurs “Closed Chambers”). Furthermore, the Hamdi and Padilla cases are clear violations of due process, setting a dangerous precedent for future secret police type actions.

On foreign policy, I think the Repubs have been an unmitigated disaster. I had mixed feelings about the Iraq war, but I am not unhappy to see Saddam gone. However, I don’t think this action has done anything to actually make us safer. I actually believe in nation building. W never did until he invaded Iraq; nor did the people who were doing the nation building in the administration. As a result they have done an unforgivably horrible job over there. And they have allowed Al Qaeda to regroup and significantly grow their membership. At the same time, N Korea and Iran have become bigger threats rather than smaller, and our quiver is not nearly as full as it was four years ago. Finally, W supports and gets support from terribly undemocratic regimes (Russia, Pakistan, various “Stans” from the old Soviet Union). By talking out of both sides of his mouth on the democracy message, he undermines our credibility once again. And Al Qaeda can continue to recruit in these areas, and the governments (at least in Pakistan) can’t always oppose it without suffering tremendous internal turmoil. It seems as though the foreign policy actions by the Bush team since the successful invasion of Afghanistan have been designed to make us less safe, rather than the reverse.

As to the court, the next president will realistically be able to appoint at least one justice, likely two and possibly as many as four (though unlikely). Were Breyer to be replaced, Roe would likely be overturned. Cases are in the system now to do just that. Were it to be overturned, the old laws would not snap back into place, of course. But many states, especially in the south, would enact laws against abortion (given that over 25 state legislatures are republican, I have to think that at least a few would immediately pass anti-abortion legislation, to be signed by republican governors). In a sense, I would not mind this set of events come to pass; we could finally have a national discourse on this topic and hopefully work it out of our system (assuming we come down on the side most European nations do). However, the clear danger to poor and uneducated women prevents me from really rooting for this dialogue.

Finally, a note on Social Security privatization: another opportunity for disaster. SS will eventually have to be refinanced in some form. Fully funding it and turning it into a real trust should be done whether it gets privatized or not. However, the complications with turning it into private accounts investing in equities seem nearly insurmountable. With private accounts with significant choice, there will always be investors who lose, regardless of the winners. Will we then have a supplemental SS to protect those seniors or widows? If not, people will die. Empirically, some people do not save. I am willing to give up a little each pay period to see that they can pay their bills. Another question goes to what choice the investors should have. Do they invest in any old stock? Do they get a bevy of mutual funds? Who picks the mutual funds? Who picks the stocks in there? Sounds overly complex. Perhaps the better solution is to fully fund SS, turn it into a trust which can invest in a variety of sources including the federal government that has a mandated level of risk and a target rate of return.

The privatization plan, like the bush healthcare plan is meant to shift risk from the government and society back to the individual. I am not sure what the gain is from this change, but history tells us what the risk is.

On these fronts and many others, I cannot support the current republican party.

Scott you probably dont need to hear it, but your good.

Yes God forbid we allow the lower class to become investors through private social security mutual fund accounts. They might start to doubt the class warfare rhetoric of the Democratic party. Boy would that be a disaster!

I pretty much vote with Vladimir Ilich Lenin on
the preservation of civil liberties: power (including the power to protect civil liberties) comes from the muzzle of a gun.

Which party wants to deprive the people of their right to bear arms, thereby making it a lot easier for the state to take away all of the other liberties?

G. Washington on Firearms: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

Also a note on the "war on drugs" - it's not about heroin it's about cocaine. And it's not about all the New York yuppies and sorority girls who snort all the cocaine, it's about the effect the cocaine trade has on the societies, cultures, and economies of most of our American neighbors.

Finally: The Clinton administration lawyer: what upset him about the 4th amendment? He wasn't the author of Clinton's EO12949, was he? A quote from that Order:

"Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section."

Here is a Reason article on Kerry's civil rights issues:

http://www.reason.com/0410/fe.jb.john.shtml
>John Kerry’s Dark Record on Civil Liberties
>The Democratic candidate is no friend to the Bill of Rights

re: those concerned about Roe V. Wade. I've always found it odd that the pro-choice activists don't work more to educate people about jury nullification. Worst case it seems likely that even if abortion were illegal it'd be hard to find a jury in most (perhaps all) parts of the country where you wouldn't have at least 1 person willing to acquit to hang a jury and make enforcement impossible. In addition, with RU-486 it seems as though shutting down the black market for it would be as unsuccessful as other forms of prohibition and leave it de facto available to anyone whatever the law said.

If there were some tiny number of places where it was somehow magically effectively enforced, perhaps thats an argument for people voting with their feet and allowing those communities to have their own standards on the issue (with it being likely anyone with different views would know full well to avoid the place). However I suspect that even if the SC overturned Roe v. Wade that alot of
lower level judges would still allow abortions in their jurisdiction and rely on the fact that few cases make it all the way up to the SC to be overturned. And may locales would likely do things like vote to have 0 funds for enforcement, etc., effectively ignore it like some of the other obselete laws on the books.

"My reading has left me pretty sure that the treatment of combatants in wartime is a thorny issue without good settled law" - up to a point. It is true that there is some dispute as to what happens to combatants not fighting in uniform as part of an organised force, which has as much to do with the historical circumstances in which the Geneva conventions were drafted as anything else. But it is absolutely clear that one thing you need to do which the US has not done is to institute a competent tribunal to determine status. In that sense you are in breach and I'm sure there are some worried people in the US armed forces, as there's a strong element of reciprocity underlying Geneva to the extent that you are only obliged to apply the rules to those who do likewise.

In a wider policy sense, you might wonder about the wisdom of allowing the US Government to lock people up essentially indefinitely, without charge and based on the very dodgy status of Gitmo being somewhere where US civil law doesn't apply but neither does that of the (unwilling) host nation, but I'll concede that this doesn't obviously violate the Geneva conventions. From a foreign perspective, the US always seemed a place that was prepared to put up with a lot of inconvenience to preserve legal and human rights, I'm not sure this reputation has survived Gitmo though. The right not to be locked up indefinitely without legal recourse (particularly if you're a foreigner) is now probably more secure in Europe, which is decidely ironic given the history of the 20th century.

"I am not sure that the Kerry plan will cause so much innovation damage – people (not necessarily the companies) in the drug development field are much less motivated by monetary figures than distinguishing themselves in their research (as Bill suggested in another thread)."

So, as long as we have a large supply of independently wealthy researchers who can afford to fund the studies that will lead to the increase in their prestige, then we'll be perfectly OK? How reassuring! I guess alternately we could rely on all the wealthy research groupies out there who are willing to fund the studies so as to increase the prestige of the scientists conducting the studies.

And those nasty selfish researchers that either are just in it for the big bucks or for the fact that the tangible benefit of increasing their prestige is big bucks can't possibly be more than, what, 20%, 30% of the current researchers? Naaah, we'll never miss 'em. Obviously such crass people could never make any REAL contribution to the field anyway. Let them just divert to fields of chemical or biological research other than drug production.

"Also, this plan, by allowing our gov’t to negotiate prices,..."

The proper term to use here is "dictate," not "negotiate". You are incorrectly implying that the companies will have any choice other than to accept the price the government is willing to pay. I suppose you could argue that they could just not produce the drug, but then the choice seems very similar to the choice you are given when a mugger with a gun tells you "Your money or your life."

"... will lower our drug costs ..."

How does this reduce "drug costs"? How does this make it any less expensive to research, test, produce, or market a drug? Perhaps you mean it will reduce prices?

"... and potentially lower profits in the short term."

Only short term? How do you figure that? If they can't charge higher prices than the reduced prices the government is willing to pay at any time over the lifecycle of the drug, then how do they ever recover the lost profit? Of course, I guess you could claim that you are semantically correct here, as the patents will eventually expire on the drug and it will become available for generic production. So, in that sense, the drug would be no less profitable at that time than it is currently, assuming that the government is willing to pay the current market rate for generics.

"But if the drug companies know they can no longer rely on the US as their cash cow, the next time France, Canada, or some other nation goes to negotiate prices, the drug companies will be far less willing to drop to marginal cost."

If the drug companies could extract more from France and Canada, they would do be doing it now. In fact, they would be in a far better position to do so now since they have a "cash cow" available in the US market. This would enable them to deny the drug to France, Canada, et. al. as part of their negotiating position without suffering too much lost profit.

The real limitation is that drugs are far easier and cheaper to produce than they are to research. If the companies don't supply the drug at the marginal rate demanded by Europe and Canada now, then someone else obtains a sample, determines the chemical structure, and produces it themselves, ignoring the patent. France, Canada, et. al. will either do this themselves or do it by proxy through some country like India, Brazil, etc. If the companies scream about it, the WTO points, laughs, and taunts the companies by saying "That's what you greed bastards get for trying to restrict access to this lifesaving technology!"

"As a result, their prices will rise, and other countries will begin to foot more of the R&D bill than they have in the past. Fairer for us, and it sticks the French with higher costs. What Republican wouldn’t like that?"

Even if this were true, is it a desirable result? It has only been a few years since the US surpassed Europe as the world's primary source of new medicines. That has mostly occurred because of the fact that the business climate for drug development is so much better in the US than in Europe. If Messr. Kerry is so keen against outsourcing, why the hell would he want to drive drug R&D and production jobs overseas.

I am a conservative republican, but as to which party would be better for civil liberties?-- I think it's both, and neither. Both parties have a history of ignoring civil liberties in times of passion (FDR's internment camps; McCarthy in the '50's). Today, many Republicans want to look in your bedroom, and under your bed for terrorists-- Democrats are willing to bust down doors of suspected polluters, gun shop owners, white supremecists etc., and "interstate commerce" means anything that moves to them. Perhaps the best we can do is keep vigilant, though a bit more bipartisanship would be nice.

Scott made a comment about Social Security privatization that I would like to comment on. First, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. For instance, the average worker has about $6,000 paid in per year to the plan (between employee & employer contributions) Theoretically, some portion goes to financing future retirement benefits. What if we used the IRA model-- put $2,000 into a SocSecIRA, take a $1,000 off your FICA? That would provide a "double cushion", it would increase savings and privatize a portion of the tax. (Your monthly benefit would be slightly lowered, based on your age at the time of the deduction-- but the bulk of the check would still be there at retirement.)
The system is broken, and we will need to float a huge amount of bonds to get through the boomers-- but this would start us on the right path for the next generation.

"power (including the power to protect civil liberties) comes from the muzzle of a gun.

Which party wants to deprive the people of their right to bear arms, thereby making it a lot easier for the state to take away all of the other liberties?"

The Republican administration is pretty bad, but not nearly as bad as the Democrats. There's Bush's politically calculated neutrality on the ban on scary looking weapons (AWB). Maybe he'll have more cojones when there are no more elections in his future, maybe not. There's Ashcroft - yes, he admits there is an individual right to bear arms, but he is no more interested in protecting that right than any of our other rights. If you are caught with a gun in the District of Columbia, you'll find DOJ lawyers prosecuting you under laws that cannot possibly be reconciled with an individual right to bear arms, rather than taking the District and the Congressional committee that oversees it to court for this blatant constitutional violation.

But there are plenty of Republicans who do believe in protecting this right. Republican Senators and Congressmen have defeated several attempts to renew the AWB. In numerous states, Republican legislatures have passed shall-issue concealed carry and Republican governors have signed it.

Over on the Democratic side, allowing ordinary citizens to carry firearms is rank heresy. Kerry has recently tried to look moderate on the issue, but a look at his Senate voting record shows what he really thinks - he's voted against guns at every chance he got, including taking a break from his Presidential campaign a few weeks ago to tack an AWB amendment onto the gun manufacturer liability reform bill.

On a personal level, look at Bush's and Kerry's responses to the questionnaire from Outdoor Life about their favorite gun. Bush has several different "favorite" guns, depending on what he's shooting at - just like any real gun nut. Kerry said his favorite gun was his M16 in Vietnam (got to remind folks he was there!), but he's got a Chicomm assault rifle now. Whoops, after bloggers raised questions about the legality of this, it turns out that wasn't Kerry, it was one of his staffers that filled out the questionnaire (Every Kerry mistake is blamed on an underling, not that Bush is much better at taking the blame), and filled it out wrong. It's an old bolt-action rifle, not an assault rifle, and he's never fired it. Nor did he show pictures or even identify the make. He apparently also owns a shotgun, and I've seen pictures of him waving that around in what looked like a range safety violation. Let me tell you, no man who likes guns would own just one rifle and never fire it, let alone own more houses than guns.

So there's a choice between an administration that is less than firm on gun rights, in a party that supports gun rights whenever it won't lose them an election, and a man who has consistently opposed citizens carrying or even being able to purchase guns, in a party which has opposed gun rights, sometimes even to the point of losing an election.

"Another question goes to what choice the investors should have. Do they invest in any old stock? Do they get a bevy of mutual funds? Who picks the mutual funds? Who picks the stocks in there? Sounds overly complex."

Two words: Index Funds

Two more: Canada's system:

[skipping, sorry, I'll be back]

I have become convinced that what we face in this country is a two-faced Parental Party, the Mommycrats and the Daddycans, who are determined to treat the citizens as children.

Sadly, it's a disfunction abusive parental party.

The Democrats will happily take away any right for the good of society, while the Republicans will do the same for the good of the State. Or maybe that's backwards. In either case, neither party has ever given back any right that has been taken by either side.

Holding my nose and voting for Bush because I'm one of thse spat-at vets. If the D had nominated Lieberman I'd probably vote for him to get rid of Bush. Most years I vote for non-parental party candidates.

Gun rights aren't really in play this election. If your concerned with civil rights this election, your big issue should be the Patriot Act. Its new ground, it gives a very large amount of power to the government at the expense of individual rights, we have to decide if the Patriot Acts passing was an over reaction due to 911 and should be scrapped entirely, or just modified to greater respect the rights of individuals.

[quote]In any case, a right will be turned into a crime... I am curious about where exactly in the Constitution this "right" is enumerated.[/quote]
That would be in the 9th and 10th Amendments, thank you very much.

--

BTW Scott, I'm curious what grand insight into human behavior you have that leads you to conclude that socializing medicine won't hurt innovation, while every economist on the face of the Earth thinks the opposite?

N Yetter do economists have the expertise to accurately assess the research possibilities that lead to medical innovation? Medical science advances depend on complex research, and sometimes come from an area of research that medical experts dont expect, let alone economists. Beyond that, the government already subsidizes the medical research done at our Universities, and also subsidizes the research for many pharmeucitical companies. Like most buisness in the US, medicine is already "socialized" on the companies end. I dont see how giving greater medical access to individual Americans would hurt medical R and D. The MDs practicing medicine are not the same MDs doing research. Beyond that, Kerrys health plan doesnt alter the framework of the current health care providers, people will be free to keep whatever health care plan they have now under Kerrys plan.

I can't really feel that one party has shown any greater committment to civil liberties than the other

You can go to jail for smoking crack, you know.

Scott: "With the HSAs, people would be forced to pay for their regularly scheduled maintenance and any tests suggested with those visits."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. In either system you pay 100% of health care costs. (What? Your insurance company has a money fairy that waves her wand and *poof* a free doctor appears?) The differences are that (1) HSAs provide optional tax-exempt interest income, (2) HSAs provide tax exemption for a variety of expenses that are not covered by insurance and are not classically tax-exempt, and (3) HSAs are slightly more work to administer. HSAs are a clear win.

Yes, some people will choose to underfund their HSAs, and then fritter the money away on beer and movies. And then they will get sick and die. It's called natural selection.

Vinylgreek--

It's in the Ninth Amendment. This unenforced amendment outlaws most ongoing government activity. It is completely ignored by all three branches of the Federal Government.

The posters on medicine, unfortunately, have it somewhat wrong.

There is quite a large incentive for prestige in the medical community, and particularly in the academic medical community. It's true that this alone will drive innovation. What is missing from this analysis is that it doesn't stop when it's invented.

There is a long, expensive, and terribly complicated process involved in testing new medical devices and drugs. Randomized controlled trials covering tens of thousands of patients - which is necessary to be able to say that your new device/intervention/drug is better than just leaving the poor patient alone - cost a mint. Nobody will test things if there's no way to profit from the discovery - why spend all the cash if you can't make any money from the studies? The feds don't fund things in the tens of millions of dollars range.

Lots of decisions in medicine aren't actually supported by evidence. They happen because there's a logical reason to think they'll work, and nobody has ever done a real study to see if it hurts. Perhaps the greatest (only?) benefit of the rise of HMO's has been that they demand evidence before they will pay for something - it's forced medicine to test a lot of old ideas, some of which turned out not to be so great.

Anyway, on a more serious topic: civil liberties. The concept that nobody seems to pick up is that attorneys general suck. I'm not aware of one that wasn't a privacy-sucking enforcement machine. What makes the current one any worse?

The South: I have a feeling that you'd be bothered for wearing a Bush-Cheney shirt in NYC (though perhaps I'm terribly wrong). I can reliably inform you that, in my modest-sized (~300k) city in the Deep South, a Kerry-Edwards shirt is pretty unremarkable. Certainly their bumper stickers are omnipresent - the liberal crowd here wears them as a badge of pride. Then there's the oft-mentioned African-American vote. Interestingly, that's seemed somewhat muted this campaign around here; usually the elections have a fairly vibrant support faction. Attention here is much more focused - based purely on how many signs are out - on local races (a special-use tax, a Congressional district). Anyway, if I had any intention of voting for the K-E ticket, I wouldn't be afraid to wear the shirt. And abortion, here? I'm certain it wouldn't happen after the first trimester, and not clear about whether it would be legal at all if the legislature had its run at things - not so much because any of them particularly want to ban it, but because it plays so well (even Democrats are stringently pro-life down here). It reminds me of the Ireland situation - running to England to get an abortion. Similar things would happen here.

Begbee says "[t]he dems are better on civil liberties. The Patiot[sic] Act needs alot of change..."

How does one reconcile that statement with this, from John Kerry's website:

"Kerry Wants to Keep 95% of the Patriot Act and Strengthen the Rest"

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0525b_a.pdf

Despite all the complaints and whining about the Government's Gitmo policy, nobody has addressed the (to my mind) critical question raised by Jane: What do we do with people who are trying to kill us in a global jihad once we capture them? The law ordinarily does not contemplate preventive detention. However, the law of war does contemplate keeping enemy soldiers incapacited for the duration of the conflict. The fact that several (the media has variously reported the number as between 7 and 11) fighters released from Gitmo have returned to the battlefield should give some pause to those urging that the full panoply of constitution rights be extended to captured jihadists. I would be interested in hearing from some of the ardent defenders of civil liberties how they think we should handle jihadists captured in Afghanistan, or Iraq or Yemen or, for that matter, in Chicago or Los Angeles. Did the Government do the right thing in releasing those prisoners from Gitmo? Should we release more of them?

somecallmetim

jane isnt a centrist republican,

she's a center left democrat, and it would be nice if she took the dem party back, sending the far left like yourself packing.

you respect no human rights, deny the basic economic instincts and activities of man, and advocate for us to just sit here and make the executions by the jihadists swift.

vous etes degolasse

D Bunny heres some info on medical R and D funding-

Many biological scientists work in research and development. Some conduct basic research to advance knowledge of living organisms, including viruses, bacteria, and other infectious agents. Basic biological research continues to provide the building blocks necessary to develop solutions to human health problems, and to preserve and repair the natural environment. Biological scientists mostly work independently in private industry, university, or government laboratories, often exploring new areas of research or expanding on specialized research started in graduate school. Those who are not wage and salary workers in private industry typically submit grant proposals to obtain funding for their projects. Colleges and universities, private industry, and Federal Government agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, contribute to the support of scientists whose research proposals are determined to be financially feasible and to have the potential to advance new ideas or processes.

In addition to the government funding of University research, heres some of the government agencies that provide other medical R and D funding-

The National Institutes of Health has information on grants in the form of fellowships and research projects in the field of biomedicine.

Office of Minority Health Resource Center, established in 1985 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, exists to promote improved health among minority groups. The site contains OMH funding announcements, a database of funding and grant resources to help support minority health projects, requests for proposals, requests for applications, and listings of internships, scholarships, awards, and program announcements.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives provides funding and information focusing on faith-based initiatives as part of the White House's Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives.

MedWeb Plus is billed as a "healthcare Internet context provider". You will find a well-organized list of links to funding opportunities, newsgroups, libraries, and medical and health organizations.

Disability Resources Monthly (DRM) Guide to Disability Resources on the Internet lists healthcare funding from government sources for individuals, nonprofits and researchers.

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Funding Opportunities features grant and contract announcements and research opportunities.

Heres what Bush and Kerry say about medical R and D in 2004-

The October 1,2004 issue of Science Magazine includes a 2004 Presidential Forum on the candidates views on science. The full article is available online at:

Bush and Kerry Offer Their Views On Science

Below are questions and answers from the article specifically relating to medical research issues:

STEM CELL RESEARCH

Science: Should U.S. government-funded scientists have access to human embryonic stem cell lines generated after August 2001? Should they be able to create new lines?”

“BUSH: My administration is the first to allow federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. However, I put in place reasonable ethical requirements for scientists who want to use taxpayer dollars. I believe that scientific discovery and ethical principles can go hand in hand and that we should not use taxpayer money to encourage or endorse the additional destruction of living, human embryos.

I remain committed to fully exploring the promise and potential of stem cell research without violating ethical principles and while maintaining respect for all human life. And I have dramatically increased funding for all forms of stem cell research. In addition, NIH is creating a new National Embryonic Stem Cell Bank, which is important for consolidation, reducing costs, and maintaining uniform quality control over the cells.”

CLONING

“Science: Should U.S. government-funded scientists be allowed to do somatic cell nuclear transfer (research cloning), creating early preimplantation human embryos for research purposes? “

“BUSH: I believe all human cloning is wrong, and a total ban on human cloning is necessary to ensure the protection of human life as the frontiers of science expand. Anything short of a comprehensive ban would be impossible to enforce and would permit human embryos to be created, developed, and destroyed solely for research purposes. I strongly support a comprehensive law against all human cloning.”

“Science: After a 5-year doubling, the budget of the National Institutes of Health is now expected to rise by less than the rate of inflation for biomedical research. What budget increase would you recommend for NIH in 2006 and beyond?”

“BUSH: I have demonstrated my commitment to biomedical research by completing a 5-year doubling of the NIH budget to more than $27 billion from a level of $13 billion. NIH entered the postdoubling period far stronger and better positioned to improve health through advances in research. The NIH now trains 1500 more scientists per year and issues 10,000 more research grants than it did in 1998. New insights into human biology and behavior are bringing us closer to prevention strategies and treatments for many of the most dreaded diseases and conditions.

The FY 2005 program level for NIH is $28.8 billion, an increase of $764 million (2.7%) over FY 2004, which is greater than the Office of Management and Budget’s estimated rate of inflation. We have not yet fully assessed the NIH’s needs for 2006, but I recognize the importance of this agency’s mission.

(Editor’s note: According to PAN’s Fall 2004 Action Reporter, the current rate of biomedical inflation is 3.5%)

Source: 2004 PRESIDENTIAL FORUM: Bush and Kerry Offer Their Views on Science
Science, Vol 306, Issue 5693, 46-52 , 1 October 2004

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;306/5693/46



Sen. John Kerry

10/13/2003 from: Remarks by Senator John Kerry Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center

Location: Lebanon, NH

“…We need to ensure that all Americans have the most cutting edge treatment available. Unfortunately, many managed care organizations won't pay costs associated with investigational treatments, leaving patients unable to participate in clinical trials and denied the benefits of new therapies and treatment options. Without more Americans able to participate in clinical trials, our health care system and patients will suffer because we won't be able to make the strides necessary to cure or prevent diseases…”

“…We also need to better fund cutting edge stem cell research. This year the National Cancer Institute isn't spending a single dollar on stem cell research ; despite all its promise. With Alzheimer's and diabetes on the rise. with 40 percent of Americans likely to get cancer in our lifetimes; we need to be pushing the boundaries of research, not letting partisan politics hold us back.

… As President, I will increase our funding to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and other important agencies and initiatives that promote crucial research… And that funding will also help ensure that medical innovations and breakthroughs benefit everyone, not just a few. New resources mean potential new cures and treatments are quickly moved into clinical trials and then into common practice."

The October 1,2004 issue of Science Magazine includes a 2004 Presidential Forum on the candidates views on science. The full article is available online at:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;306/5693/46

Below are questions and answers from the article specifically relating to medical research issues:

STEM CELL RESEARCH

Science: Should U.S. government-funded scientists have access to human embryonic stem cell lines generated after August 2001? Should they be able to create new lines?”

KERRY: Yes. As president, I will lift the current ban on federal funding of research on stem cell lines created after August 2001. Right now, more than 100 million Americans suffer from illnesses that one day could be wiped away with stem cell therapy, including cancer, Parkinson’s, diabetes, and other debilitating diseases. We must make funding for this research and other important scientific work a priority in our universities and our medical community—all while we ensure strict ethical oversight. And we must secure more funding for it at agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.”

CLONING

“Science: Should U.S. government-funded scientists be allowed to do somatic cell nuclear transfer (research cloning), creating early preimplantation human embryos for research purposes? “

“KERRY: I’m proud to support bipartisan legislation by Senator Orrin Hatch that would make human cloning illegal. This bipartisan legislation includes support for somatic cell nuclear transfer, which would provide greater access to stem cells to conduct the important research we need. We all have loved ones who suffer from diseases that could be cured or ameliorated by this research, including cancer, Parkinson’s, diabetes, spinal cord injury, and Alzheimer’s. This is not a partisan issue. We should not put ideological shackles on the ability of America’s doctors to bring them those urgently needed cures.”

“Science: After a 5-year doubling, the budget of the National Institutes of Health is now expected to rise by less than the rate of inflation for biomedical research. What budget increase would you recommend for NIH in 2006 and beyond?”

KERRY: I supported doubling of the NIH budget, beginning in 1998, and will continue to support sustained growth. NIH has a spectacular record in improving human health. Its work around the country has opened exciting new avenues of research—including stem cell research—that promise even more spectacular advances in coming decades. I will support consistent, sustained growth to expand NIH biomedical research, to invest in health promotion and disease prevention, and to strengthen the ties between NIH and other R&D agencies.”

Mcc Defining the 5% of the Patriot act Kerry wants to change makes a big difference then just giving the numbers-

Sen. John Kerry wants to narrow the USA Patriot Act. President Bush wants to expand it.

There are clear-cut differences between the candidates on the issue of the post-Sept. 11 law that rewrote the boundaries between security and civil liberties. But they don't stand at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Kerry, who voted for the Patriot Act, says he wants to retain most of it and modify - but not repeal - the provisions he considers most prone to abuse. Those involve library and bookstore searches, wiretaps and the delayed- notification searches known as "sneak and peek.''

Kerry, for example, contends the biggest problem with the Patriot Act is its misuse by Attorney General John Ashcroft. But the only actions of Ashcroft he cites are unrelated to the Patriot Act, such as the attorney general's approval of FBI surveillance of political gatherings.

Bush's claim that the law has protected the United States from terrorism likewise has to be taken largely on faith. The president has also run into criticism from a nonpartisan fact-checking organization for a campaign ad that accuses Kerry of undermining national security by trying to weaken the Patriot Act.

Kerry has staked out a middle ground on the Patriot Act. The Massachusetts Democrat, a former prosecutor, initially called the 2001 law a reasonable compromise. He now supports the most prominent legislative vehicle to narrow the law, the Security and Freedom Ensured or SAFE Act, which has been introduced in both Houses but has yet to obtain a hearing. Its provisions would:

-- Require federal agents seeking warrants for records from libraries, bookstores and other businesses and institutions to present evidence that the records belong to a terrorist or foreign spy.

-- Limit "sneak and peek'' searches to emergency cases, where lives or evidence are in danger, and require notification after seven days. The Patriot Act sets no deadline for notification.

-- Increase judicial scrutiny of roving wiretap orders against any phone used by a terror suspect, and add safeguards against eavesdropping on innocent people.

Jeff Davis, To blame democrats alone for McCain-Feingold is idiotic. It was bi-partisan. The "McCain" at the front should have been a hint. It also passed a GOP controlled House and was signed by a GOP president. But the dems are to blame. How stupid!

Begbee: So, uh, Stolen Honor's "distorted, self contradicted information" was worthy of praise from the Times?

I guess those Evil Republicans at the Times are just carrying water for Bush, right?

Bueller?

(I like that you don't, apparently, see any problem at all with restricting free speech about the election, as long as those speaking are anti-Kerry, and a law was passed saying that it's okay to restrict them. But laws passed restricting rights you like are just wrong, and they're intolerable infringements, it seems. Odd. Almost as if your primary concern was a Democrat victory (and the set of rights that Democrats like) rather than maximising all civil rights.)

Postscript:

In my forthcoming dictatorship, it will be illegal for people to talk about the Evils of the Patriot Act without providing reference to the specific parts of the Act that they find irksome to liberty and incompatible with our manifold civil rights.

Because people who just say "Patriot is bad because it gives the government more powers" aren't gonna convince anyone, let alone me.

The reason for that is that I've looked at the text of the act, and I've read arguments for and against it; the former, oddly, always talk about specifics, and the latter never seem to, and often say things about the Act that are either demonstrably untrue (typically, they say that the Act allows things it does not, conflating Patriot with "anything Bush or Ashcroft do that I don't like") or not obviously a problem, like the "library records" canard.

Wonder why it might be that specifics are not generally provided by the anti-Patriot side? Might it be because the specifics just aren't very scary and don't sound unreasonable to most people?

If Patriot is really such a terrible threat to my civil liberties, I'd very much like someone to tell me exactly in what way it is so.

(Arguments that the Act contributes to a trend less recently added to by FISA et al. and that this trend might eventually, potentially result in real harm to civil liberties are not relevant to the point at hand, though their truth is granted upon stipulation. A slippery slope argument, however, is an argument for caution about a law, not that it is Evil and Wrong and makes the baby constitution cry.)

Post-Postscript:

Begbee is uncharacteristically apt on PATRIOT; his examples of what might be reformed (under SAFE) are sober and useful, don't slam the entire Act as an evil assault on civil liberties, and point out that the Act was essentially bipartisan, and the quibbles about what's appropriate are, over the whole of the Act, pretty minor.

(What? You think I could wade through every comment before posting? With this many of them? Hah!)

As a Libertarian, your choice of major party presidential candidates is very easy. The first (many would say last and only) role of government is protecting the country from foreign enemies. Bush is the only one of the two candidates who has any credibility as a "war" President. The people can't follow a leader like Kerry that constantly changes his mind or has infinitely nuanced positions about everything. To my mind, 9/11 changed things as much as Pearl Harbor and until the threat of terrorism is defeated, the other issues at play in this election are just intellectual masturbation.

Vote Bush!

Megan: I too am a libertarian who has had some trouble figuring out which way to go... there is a certain paradox in being both libertarian and pro-intervention-in-the-Middle-East which is a classic big-government project. I eventually figured out a very straightforward way to reconcile these positions. I hope this might help you decide, or at least provide some amusement:

http://obsidianorder.blogspot.com/2004/10/libertarian-case-for-bush.html

To summarize: I too care about civil liberties. But I care about civil liberties *everywhere*, not just where I happen to be. There is a certain isolationist current in US politics on both the right and left, but unfortunately that doesn't work in the 21st century. Quite aside from the moral problems with saying "We don't care if people in are living under a brutal genocidal dictator, we are free and what happens to other people is none of our business"... it also doesn't work pragmatically. Authoritarian regimes are a threat... a lot of the mayhem in the world originates from them and spreads to neighboring places (Bangladesh-India, to pick a random example). Certainly, for one (insane) person or a tiny group to control the power and resources of a whole country is a prospect to give anyone nightmares.

Sigivald Ive never agreed with the dems across the board, and Ive previously voted rep in a Presidential election. But incompetance that allowed 911 to occur, the war in Iraq, and the refusal to hold SA responsible for anything, has infuriated me, and I thought Bush was to dumb for the job to begin with. I try to present balanced information on things like health care and the Patriot act, but I would be a liar if I presented any "positive" information on Iraq. Fair cant always be balanced, and imo the war on Iraq is like the Bush tax cuts, they were decided on as part of the Bush campaign agenda, and damn any event that would cause a logical movement away from that agenda.

Sigivald I have read that of the three POWs presented in Stolen Honor, two have previously stated Kerrys testimony had no effect on their status or treatment as POWs, and the third POW didnt give any contemperainious statements to Kerrys congressional testimony upon his release. I dont like the current campaign finance laws, but the issue with Stolen Honor is FCC restrictions on what is called "news" as applied to an election. Imo Stolen Honor isnt "news", but Sinclair could have got around that if they were willing to present a balanced opinion, i.e. equal time for those that disagree with the accusations made in Stolen Honor. I dont think the reps have thought much about the future as far as the Swiftys and Stolen Honor goes, it seems that anyone who has served heroically in our armed forces will think twice before running for office, because this election has all but made the US armed forces vetted record irrelevant.

Meagan,

I am a libertarian leaning republican. I am very biased against democrats, as I see a party only concerned with maintaining thier dwindling power, while Republicans are hungry enough for power to actually be concerned, at the moment, for thier constituency.

I am under no illusions that in 5 or 10 or 30 years the Republicans will be as bad as the Democrats are now, but at this moment in time the Repulicans can still feel shame, the Democrats only want thier power back and until they refocus on what Americans want, they should be refused office at every opportunity.

To support my arguement, review the Florida Supreme court decision regarding the 2000 election. Review the Clarence Thomas hearings vs the Clinton Monicagate scandal, and Clinton's ongoing relevance in the Democrat party vs Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston. Review the Toricelli option from the last Senate election in New Jersey, or the McGreedy situation this year. Review the California recall election of Gray Davis.

This argument is kin to the gridlock argument in that the mainstream media is still dominated by liberals so that any misssteps by the Republicans are highly reported, while Democrats get the kid glove treatment, therefore, when radicals want to talk about some out of the mainstream story accusing Republicans of civil liberty atrocities, and the mainstream media isnt covering it, you can rest assured that it is much ado about nothing, whereas if the right is harping on an item and the mainstream media isnt covering it, sometimes its even worse than the right is characterizing it, which is the reason the MSM isnt covering it.

This is my little theory of political reflexivity.

Begbee,

You sound like a standard Democrat talking points caller on a conservative talk radio show...claim to be an 'independent, previous republican voter, etc' and then go on to spout issues and codeword straight out of a Democrat talking points memo. Give us all a break, we are smarter than that. if you have real opinons or ideas, then write them and support them, stop regugitating what Mike McCurry and Bob Shrum tell you to say.

kthnxbye

Dude above hijacked my screen name.

I dont regurgitate democratic talking points, Ive been stating my opinion long before the Dems caught up.

Which party is shameless?

Lets see the dems have Mcgreedy, but at least hes resigning. The reps have Rush "any oral opiate I can get my hands on" Limbaugh, Jack "take my wife for example, please take her" Ryan, Bill "give me Notre Dame, lay the points for 50 large" Bennet, and Bill "vibrator Factor" Orielly. Kinda makes Monica not such a big deal. The reps have redifined "brazen it out".

lol, could you respond in a more cliched Democrat manner? anyone that calls O'Reilly a Republican is by definition a Democrat. The rest is the same old Democrat equivocation...none of those people you mentioned are elected representatives, and only one of them was running for elective office...would you like to compare Republican partisans shortcomings to Democrat partisans shortcomings? I think you would find the ratio of pedophiles and overdose deaths somewhat depressing.....

But that is your point, to devolve the whole discussion into a pathetic back and forth on who is the worst, instead of who is the best, because while the current Incumbent candidate may be a horrible candidate, he is the best candidate available to vote for.

Joel mackey: "any misssteps by the Republicans are highly reported"

Media-gridlock? Interesting point.

I admit that the prospect of Republicans having the House, Senate and Presidency is somewhat unsettling... to mix things up I would prefer a a Democrat majority in the House (but still a Republican president, ideally).

However, what I forsee will happen if the Republicans sweep all three is that it will accelerate the evolution of *both* parties. Let me explain what I mean here... the Democrats will obviously have to rethink things in a big way... if anything can drive a wedge between the centrist base of union-democrats and mildly-liberal-suburban-moms on one hand, and the limousine-lawyer-liberal leadership and marx-mao-tshirt lunatic fringe on the other... this is it. On the other hand, I think it will lead to a splintering of the Republicans as well... the alliance between the religious-right vote and libertarian-republicans is uneasy at best. Once there is no need to "pull together" they will start fighting against each other... picture a scenario in which Republicans win almost by default, but Republican primaries are heated contests between different ideologies within the party.

All that speculation on Congress is bunk because Kerry is going to win the executive. Anyone that watched the debates know Kerry is easily the betterman. And there are a whole lot of new voters registered in the battleground states breaking about 65 dem and 35 rep. And 3 out of 4 undecideds break the challengers way.

Mackey understand what the debate is about before you interject some point on elected office to comments that were never made. I was responding to a clown that hijacked my screenname, who brought up conservative talk shows, Shrum and Mccurry. If your going to be thirdman in, be on subject, Bozo.

Is it important who wins? The same historical forces still push us. Kerry will be forced to comply with the Bush Doctrine just as Eisenhower followed through with the Truman Docrine. Why? Because our enemies would not go away and we were forced to confront them. The Arabic Fascists will not go away; they will lie quiet until they can strike us again. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Fordist agreements between Big Business, Big Labor and Big Government did too.

Something new is in the works. Big Business and Big Labor have already collapsed; each becomes a smaller percentage of the GNP every year. Small and medium sized business is where the action and job creation is. Big Government is next. Will Kerry help create this new world? No. He is a reactionary; he wants to maintain the status quo. He will fight against the change and in doing so will a lot of Americans killed.

I am an independent that almost always votes republican, but its obvious bush lied about wmd just to invade Iraq to steal thier oil.

But I am independent and usually vote republican so the above non-sense is extra-superduper-credible when I say it.

Also Bush is a modern day hitler that wants to give all the poor's money to the rich.

But I almost voted for Reagan before I voted for Dukakis, so I am independent critical thinker who's statements are fully credible and should be taken to heart.

Joel Mackey,

Exactly what shame has the GOP exhibited when Tom Delay was reprimanded by the House Ethic committee two times in two weeks?

Honestly both parties are disasters when it comes to civil liberties. The democrats are by far the worst, they believe in big government and big taxes. If they think most of what you earn belongs to them you have no civil liberties, they think they own you and your labor.

Furthermore as bad as the republicans are one look at the collusion between the democrats, the trial lawyers, and the food / lifestyle nannies should make anyone who cares about civil liberties run to vote for George Bush.

Hijacking my screenname makes whoever is doing it a gutless C***.

What shame should he have felt Herman Munster? He was accussed of trumped up ethics charges by a Democrat for the express purpose of destroying his reputation in an election year.

Unfortunately the charges had no basis in fact. So you are left harping on 'reprimands' instead of sanctions. I would gladly compare house republican ethics violations and the resulting punishments to the house democrats ethics violations and resulting in punishments (or lack thereof).

This does not mean that I think one party has a stock of members with superior character or morals, it means that I think one party is held to account for their misdeeds more than the other, that being the Republican party, therefore I am less afraid to vote for them.

I think this attitude is felt, at least subliminally, by a growing number of Americans, and is a contributing factor in the decline of the Democrat political dominance, by nature the scales will shift soon, as state offices, bureacracies and media outlets become filled with Republican supporters.

I am a gutless C***.

I have to call people names instead of answering the substance of thier post.

I had my my sense of humor removed when I entered the Democrat party covert prapogandist unit.

I have to go now and apply for a brain and spine implant.

Jane
If you have not done so already, see EJ Dionne in today's WaPo. Personally, I have been an independent amd moderate voter since 1974. The outrageous mendacity and fundamentally self-serving behavior of the current Administration has driven me shrieking into the waiting arms of the Democratic Party.

Begbee, I apologize and recognize you as a superior intellect. Im changing my party affiliation and VOTING KERRY. I would advise each and every republican to see the wisdom of Begbees words, and advise you to vote a straight democratic ticket.

I expect the government to take a reasonable approach to civil liberties, as the Constitution itself does. The Fourth Amendment talks about "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

The standard of unreasonable changes as the nature of crime and the threats that it poses do. People have a right to expect the government to protect them, and the laxity of keeping track of aliens in this country and the inability to respond to plainly disturbing information should have Americans hopping mad. Instead, we think our law enforcement agencies are the enemy. I was a public defender for 13 years and I know the kind of stuff cops are capable of, but it doesn't hold a candle to blowing up airplanes and buildings full of people.

I think that our "random search" policy at airports is definitely unreasonable. If they can't articulate a reason for searching someone other than he/she is 15th in line, they shouldn't be doing it. Profiling is one way to make searches reasonable, but it has to be based on more than just skin color. I wonder how much time is wasted on frisking people at airports that could be used to do something useful in identifying potential terrorists.

As far as Gitmo is concerned, I think it's a sad day when we have to hold prisoners outside of the country because the courts have lost the ability to weigh the hazards and the potential for damage against the imposition on individuals. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." When we're talking about rights, how about the right to live, travel, work and shop without fear of being killed?

As far as the war on drugs is concerned, it's a political decision. The government wouldn't be spending this kind of money and manpower if there wasn't strong political support for it. The problem is that drugs are the kind of thing that cause huge amounts of damage to innocent people, as well as property, but the majority of people who use them occasionally know their limits and don't let them make them stupid. As soon as someone can find a way to reliably define who should be allowed to use drugs, including alcohol, socially, I'm ready to listen, but until then, I'm willing to let the people decide through the political process.

Consider how much all of our privileges and freedoms depend on our trust for each other. It that breaks down because we won't punish those who violate our trust, what kind of future do we have.
The story about Senators getting inside tips on investing should cause eruptions among the populace. Instead, we shrug it off with, "They all do it. What can I do about it." That kind of apathy is less likely to happen in small local governments because people know they can raise hell at a city council meeting and deluge the paper with complaints. When the person who's screwing up is in Washington or has no accountability to the voters, say he's protected by civil service laws, nobody has a reasonabl expectation of being heard or listened to.

If you're worried about civil rights, I say look at who is imposing speech codes at colleges and are behind the "hostile workplace" type rules that limit the freedom of speech and association. As far as I can tell, everybody who gets power tries to use it to deny freedom to someone else. The goal, therefore, should be to limit the amount of power government and other institutions can exercise. Government has to have and exercise power, otherwise, it wouldn't be government, but it should be accountable first and foremost to the people. Courts should interfere only when the political system has clearly failed to protect everybody in the ordinary rights we all have.

There should be a balance between benefits and obligations to live in this society. Your freedom depends on your personal duty to behave responsibly, and respect the needs of the community.

The Bush haters, even in these comments, base their hostility more on lies about him than on anything he has actually done. I say first make us safe, then we can talk about the small stuff.

AST how would have any search and seizure stopped any terrorist act in US history? What were we going to do, bust the 911 terrorists for possessing box cutters? Even Mcveigh had nothing other then fertilizer and diesal fuel.

I have no problem with randomly searching anyone using mass transit even if its geared towards racial profiling.

We held the POWs outside of the US to prevent them access to US courts. It wasnt because there was distrust of the judiciary, it was because due process in the US could reveal classified information or communicate with other terrorists.

Alcohol and Tobacco do far more damage then all the other rec drugs combined. The crime generated by drugs is because the black market greatly inflates the value of the drugs. A person is always responsible for their actions no matter what they ingest.

It takes a punk to say take my freedom, just keep me safe.

Ah, the perfect capstone to a truly frightening discussion: "I say first make us safe, then we can talk about the small stuff."

The government of the United States asserted, in papers, to the S. Ct., that it had the right to indefinitely detain a US citizen without hearing or access to counsel. The small stuff. The next time any of the pro-Bush commenters feel like complaining about the misuse of the coercive power of the state, I hope they'll have the integrity to either:

(1) come up with an even semi-coherent explanation of why whatever they're complaining about (filling out paperwork, EPA regulations, taxes, etc.) is worse than being thrown in jail by the government for as long as it wants to keep them there; or

(2) STFU.

first, what is the S. Ct., I would think a person of your superior knowledge could type at least 60 words per minute and therefore, would take mere seconds to fully describe the source you refer to.

Second. What did this "US Citizen" do to garner the special attention of the US government that he was denied his civil liberties? Or more specifically, what is the US government accusing him of doing that they are taking away his civil liberties?

I know liberals of all types, are very sensitive to attacks on civil liberties. Guess what, so are conservatives. You remember those cultists that got burned down in Waco? And the white separatist who lost a wife and son to FBI snipers on Ruby Ridge? Yea, big time rightwing calls to action against government intrusion into civil liberties....But there is a material difference in a guy selling sawed off shotguns, and guy trying to light off some composition 4 in the heel of his shoe on a jet full of passengers.

But dieing for wanting to be left alone surely must be worse than being jailed for attempting to kill as many non-muslims as you possibly can... isnt it? I mean, how could it not be, it wouldnt square with your sophomoric argument after all, so it must not be.

Begbee, I apologize and recognize you as a superior intellect. Im changing my party affiliation and VOTING KERRY. I would advise each and every republican to see the wisdom of Begbees words, and advise you to vote a straight democratic ticket.

I don't know who this "Rmc" (small 'm') is, but his writing is atrocious; lack of capitalization, no apostrophes...mercy. Reminds me of somebody I know...

All readers should disreguard the imposter RMc above. I recognized the error of my ways thanks to the tutoring of the Godlike Begbee. VOTE KERRY!!!!!!!

RMc the pleasure was all mine, glad I could coach you up.

Kerry and Bush on civil liberties. This writer prefers Kerry

http://www.alternet.org/rights/20300/

Flipping Off Bush on Civil Liberties

By Noah Leavitt, AlterNet. Posted October 27, 2004.

As the election draws near, discussions of civil liberties have all but disappeared from the public discourse. Earlier questions about balancing civil liberties and national security seem to have been replaced by both candidates’ need to prove that they are the toughest candidate possible, regardless of the consequences for Americans’ precious civil liberties. But there are still important differences between the two men.

Bush and Cheney tell us that Kerry voted for the USA PATRIOT Act but now criticizes it. Kerry’s defense has been that as he has acquired more information about the law, he has rethought his understanding, which may cause him to appear as if he is changing his position. That answer may be accurate, but it does not get at the heart of the problems with the administration’s approach to civil liberties. If Kerry had wanted to be on the offense, rather than the defensive, he could have noted that almost every major sector of U.S. judicial, political, and civil society has flipped President Bush’s laws and practices that touch on civil liberties protection.

Really, President Bush’s entire record on civil liberties is a flop.

Flipping Bush in the Courts

Federal courts have taken the lead in flipping Bush’s civil liberties agenda. Take, for example, Mr.Yaser Hamdi.

Hamdi was the subject of an important U.S. Supreme Court decision this past summer. There, the majority of the Justices found that the Bush administration had been unconstitutionally holding Hamdi as an ‘enemy combatant’ without charging him with any crimes, and without giving him access to his court-appointed lawyer or to the U.S. judicial system to review his complaints.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against the administration’s arguments, completely flipping the White House’s claims that it could treat American citizens without regard to the Constitution.

Last month, Hamdi returned to Saudi Arabia. He was released in exchange for his agreeing not to bring claims against the United States for injuries suffered while imprisoned in Virginia and South Carolina.

Hamdi is but one example of a rapidly growing string of court decisions flipping the Bush’s problematic policies because they violate basic constitutional rights.

As attorney Elaine Cassel has recently pointed out in her new book,The War on Civil Liberties, the Bush administration has followed a predictable and increasingly failing pattern in prosecuting alleged terrorists: it makes dramatic, highly public allegations that distort the facts. It then accepts pleas to lesser charges in exchange for prison sentences that are unusually harsh for those lesser charges. Then it claims credit for “winning the war against terrorism.”

The Administration tried this in Detroit, where a year ago, Attorney General John Ashcroft boasted that he had won his major court victory in the war on terror by prosecuting a suspected terrorist sleeper cell. Yet, we recently learned in the New York Times that the prosecution was no victory at all – it was a farce, and one engineered by the highest levels of the Justice Department. Not only that, but in late August, the DOJ submitted a remarkable memorandum to federal judge Gerald Rosen in Detroit, admitting that its prosecution had been riddled with a pattern of mistakes and oversights.

This “victory” deserved to be flipped, and Judge Rosen did exactly that.

U.S. courts are even beginning to flip the almighty USA PATRIOT Act – the cornerstone of Bush’s civil liberties platform. For example, in January, a federal district court in California declared unconstitutional a section of the Act that prevented providing material support for groups accused of being terrorists because it was overly broad and vague and could apply to all kinds of non-terrorist groups.

More recently – in fact, just before the first presidential debate – a federal judge in New York struck down a major surveillance component of the PATRIOT Act that gave the FBI extraordinary power to demand information from companies without needing to obtain a court order. Frighteningly, that section also prevented recipients of the letters from ever revealing that they received the FBI demand for records. Judge Marrero wrote that such “all-inclusive sweeps” for information “had no place in our open society.”

And more challenges are on the way. A federal court in Michigan is considering a challenge to another section of the Act that allows the FBI to obtain an order to force any organization or business to turn over any tangible evidence that could relate to a terrorism investigation. Such cases will provide additional opportunities for courts to flip additional sections of Bush’s problematic legislation.

Flipping Bush in the Executive Branch

The courts are not the only sector of society that are throwing out Bush’s civil liberties practices – it is happening within the President’s own administration.

Recall that more than 13,000 Arabs and Muslims were detained and deported since September 11. Often, they were not charged with any offense, their families were not informed, and they were denied access to counsel. And recall that not a single one was charged with a specific act of terror.

Rightly, the Justice Department’s own Inspector General has been highly critical of this racially tainted, misguided type of “justice.” In addition, the Inspector General – an Executive Branch employee – has criticized the Administration because these detainees faced awful conditions in jails across the country where they awaited their fates.

Yet, at the same time as the Bush administration has been rounding up thousands of Muslims without demonstrating that any of them have any connection to terrorism, it has also been severely curtailing a broader investigation of non-terrorism related crimes. According to a recent Justice Department study, the FBI's shift from a broad attack on crime to an intense focus on counter-terrorism has resulted in tens of thousands fewer investigations into “traditional” crimes since 9-11.

While that report did not specifically criticize the DOJ, given the miserable record that the Bush administration has demonstrated in prosecuting terrorism cases, one cannot help but question the effectiveness of such policies in keeping our country safe and secure.

President Bush’s Own Flipping

Of course, President Bush has a well-documented history of changing his mind on civil liberties and domestic security questions.

For example, he initially opposed the creation of a Homeland Security office because he did not want to federalize law enforcement. (In a debate with Al Gore on October 11, 2000, he said, “I believe in local control of governments. I think we need to find out where racial profiling occurs and say to the local folks, get it done.”)

However, when political pressure increased after 9-11 for more coordinated intelligence and law enforcement operations, Bush created a massive new federal department, giving it billions of dollars to centralize power within the federal level, combining 22 agencies and more than 180,000 federal employees.

Kerry Gives a Few Clues

Compared to way the current administration regards civil liberties and national security, Kerry’s evolving positions on issues must be seen in a different light.

The most frequently cited example, of course, is Kerry’s change of heart on the PATRIOT Act – by now, most Americans know that Kerry voted for the Act and made some supportive statements about parts of it.

For instance, several weeks after the September 11 attacks, during a speech on the Senate floor, Kerry said he was “pleased at the compromise we have reached on the antiterrorism legislation, as a whole.” And on Fox News that same week – before President Bush signed the legislation – Kerry said the Act “streamlines the ability of law enforcement to do its job. It modernizes our ability to fight crime."

Since then, Americans – among them Senator Kerry – have watched as the untrammeled use of the PATRIOT Act and other tools of the Bush Administration’s domestic war on terror have been used recklessly, and have been crashing and burning around us.

With three years of lessons learned, of massive news coverage detailing the horrors of the detention of innocent immigrants, of American citizens held as enemy combatants, of outsourcing “tough” interrogations to countries where torture is practiced freely, of Abu Ghraib, Kerry now criticizes certain parts of the PATRIOT Act.

Can anyone blame him? To continue to support the Administration’s domestic war on terror in the face of three years of overwhelming factual evidence of misuse and outright failures would be naïve and misguided.

It is true that Kerry recently told the American Bar Association’s Journal that he believes “some provisions of the PATRIOT Act—like the money laundering provisions—must be made stronger.” He added that, “Others—like the library and ‘sneak-and-peek’ search provisions—must be made smarter, to better protect privacy and freedom while allowing our government to do everything necessary to track down terrorists and defend America.”

Here are some questions those concerned about civil liberties should ask when choosing a Presidential candidate next week:

Which candidate is more likely to call for undermining the Bill of Rights by holding U.S. citizens incommunicado and without access to the courts?

Which candidate would ask residents to spy on each other, as the administration’s neighbor-spying-on-neighbor Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS) program would have done?

Which candidate would instruct federal courts to close court hearings on routine immigration matters, as the Justice Department ordered in late 2001?

Which candidate would be more likely make arrangements for people in the U.S. who are potential suspects of terrorist-related crimes to be covertly transferred to countries that permit torture, in order to obtain information?

Flipped by the American electorate

If a sample of resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act is any indication, a steadily growing portion of the American electorate appear more and more likely to flip Bush’s civil liberties agenda.

At the time of this writing, more than 358 communities in 43 states, including four state resolutions, covering about 55 million people, have passed resolutions and other public statements expressing concern about and opposition to the highly intrusive provisions of the PATRIOT Act, or the convoluted, rushed, secretive process by which it zoomed through Congress in the first six chaotic weeks after the September 11 attacks.

Not surprisingly, this list includes nearly all major American cities. Yet, it also includes such “hotbeds of liberalism” as Lincoln, Nebraska; Tumwater, Washington; Boone, North Carolina; and Jackson, Mississippi – places in solidly Republican territory that have seen the perils of Bush’s domestic security policy which treats the Constitution as a mere option to be ignored at the President’s whims.

The federal courts and the Department of Justice’s own Inspector General have overturned aspects of the administration’s policies that they say are direct violations of American’s civil liberties. On November 2nd, citizens will have a chance to say for themselves what they think of the civil liberties agenda of the past four years.

Megan,
On the matter of civil liberty here's 2 facts and a question to ponder. A ditz on Al Franken's Air America used her position as an announcer to openly call for the murder of Mr. Bush with no particular fallout apart from GM withdrawing their ads to avoid being associated with her. As far as I know Miss WhatsHerFace is still active and on the air.

http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/012239.html

Meanwhile, as we can see from the following posts, the John Kerry campaign made a point of using the legal muscle it could to block the broadcast of a documentary it deemed inconvenient.

http://instapundit.com/archives/018388.php

So riddle me this, which candidate is likely to be better for the continuance of Free Speech - The candidate who ignores political opponents giving public calls for his assasination on broadcast media or the candidate whose henchmen make a point of bullying journalists who report inconvenient facts? o_O

Here's a bonus question: If censorship groupies like the Kerry campaign are given the increased opportunities for censorship that the powers of office confer then why should we think that access to such powers, would weaken rather than strengthen the tendencies towards censorship that they have already begun to show? O_o

Bottomline queston: Do you really want to give power to people who think Freedom of Speech is the exclusive property of their faction and and that no one else should have it? :P

Just a thought! ^_~

Sincerely yours,
S.P.M.

All readers should disreguard the imposter RMc above.

Honest, officer...I tried to "disreguard", but I didn't know how...

I know Begbee, and let me tell you something sir, your no Begbee. You should be grateful for the wisdom, truth, and panache Begbee brings to the board, instead you shift identities like a message board terrorist and harass the great man for spelling errors. Sir, have you no shame? Put aside your envy, and join all the Begbelievers in giving the great man the praise he so deeply deserves for enlightening all of us. I want to apologize to Begbee for the fool impersonating him, and to personally thank him for turning me into a Kerry supporter. God bless you, Begbee, America needs and appreciates you.

RMc,

Thanks, I really appreciate your kind words, its hard arguing against some of the morons on these comment threads, but when I see the results of my hard work, it is very gratifying.

BTW, if you want to hookup later for some anal sex, call me on my mobile and we can meet at our usual reststop of I-20

xxxoooo

Only if your catching RMc.

OK another lawyer weighs in. Hmm...I think this premise of "civil liberties" is viewed incorrectly from the get go. The left and the right are each for certain civil liberties that they favor. On the left, it's Miranda warnings, and abortion, on the right it's gun ownership, and freedom of religion.
Somebody else quoted P.J. O'Rourke so I'll do the same. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." He's spot-on.

So how do the parties look when applying this standard? Democrats are the ones pushing smoking bans, they push loads of regulation on business, on land use rights, they push more and more government interference in our everyday lives. These are the biggest intrusions on our liberties. I'm far less worried about how nicely we treat criminals. Under P.J.'s comment above they are merely suffering the consequences. If the government stayed out of it, we the people could just string them up in the town square, as we used to. That was freedom. Those were liberties. So which party is closer to letting you do as you damn well please?

You're wrong on "under god" by the way. There's no way the first amendment intended to ban such things. It's primary intent was to promote the free exeercise of religion, and to prevent federal intereference in that exercise. The only interference they could imagine was an official state established religion, so they banned that. The founders fully expected public, local displays of religion to continue, free from federal inetrference. So now it's turned on its head and the federal courts are interfering in local religious displays.

Steve L I think as far as free speech goes the dems support free speech for the individual, while the reps only concern as to free speech is that groups be allowed to purchase as much political speech as they want. I use to drink with one of Larry Flynts lawyers, and he was of the opinion that neither party supported free speech for the individual in the face of contriversy, be it Henry Miller or Larry Flynt, and the judiciary makes the big decisions. You extend free speech arguments to things like smoking and land use, and that just isnt covered by free speech.

I agree the founders wouldnt have objected to the use of the word god on currency, in public places, etc. But they also believed in slavery and wife beating. There is absolutely no good reason for any religion to be forced on the public.

Comments are Closed.