JRA,

You are correct in pointing out that the "Little Red Book" story has been debunked as a fraud, but my Google search tells me that the correct info has just gotten out there in the last few hours.

I'll give Brendan a pass on this one.............

SOmethingelse,

Glad you label yourself appropriately. A real small "L" libertarian keeps an eye on our liberties and doesn't rush around like a NeoCon/Straussian with his Golden ass on fire, trying to tease tortured definitions out of the Constitition to defend allies in power. Maybe you can round it out ala Daniel Pipes with the old "If you have nothing to hide" chestnut.

The little red book story has turned out to be a fraud but that doesn't make the cartoon wrong.

On the contrary, the Patriot Act authorizes accessing individuals' library records under FISA. The Powers That Be have fought hard to keep that access included, even though they have also claimed they don't really intend to use it. Kind of reminiscent of the whole torture thing: We don't torture but if we don't have the legal right to torture it will mean the end of civilization as we know it.

Lots of information available at the American Library Association website.

Perhaps Brendan isn't the one who needs a better acquaintance with the facts.

Doretta is correct. This is why many libraries have stopped keeping track of what books you have checked out once you return those books.

They do not think it is right for the government to come in and look at that information, so they've done what they can to stop it-- not keep the information.

The cartoon doesn't talk about the "little red book," it talks about one of the items on the list of things that the Patriot Act allows them to look at.

Not everyone who doesn't want the government to see everything in their e-mail or what happens with their phones are doing something illegal.

What about those who are doing things such as strategizing on how we're going to win elections next year and in 2008.

Or are giving reporters the truth behind the lies the government tries to feed us (I'm talking about stuff like Watergate).

I'm sorry, but we're guaranteed a right of privacy in this country unless a judge issues a warrant. And they are supposed to have a certain amount of evidence that you're actually a threat or doing something illegal before they get that warrant.

Unless they have a warrant, I don't want the government (or anyone else) reading my e-mails, listening into my phone conversations, etc. unless I've given them permission to do so.

JRA--

We never said the government cannot look at such things. We're just asking that they follow set rules and processes-- they make a case and take it before a judge to get a warrant. There is a secret court for just such things so that suspected terrorists/spies can be watched without them knowing.

However, what they're doing is spying on Americans without following any of the processes being followed. They decide they want to watch an American and they do it without a warrant. There is no excuse for that.

We are at a hightened alert because of terrorists-- we are not "at war." Just because the Bush Administration calls it a "war on terrorism," does not mean we're at war. We're at war when we declare war on another country, are physically attacked by another country and are physically having to defend ourselves (as in Country X brings troops into the U.S. and we're having battles all over the country), etc. Trying to ferret out terrorists around the world is not "at war."

Thanks Skip,

I figured that someone would jump on the "nothing to hide" bandwagon.

JRA,

Seconding what Jenni said, I don't think that there's anyone on this board or in the US Congress that calling for the scrapping of the Patriot Act or an end to gummint domestic surveillance. What we are calling for is review and oversight by the judiciary and the legislative branches.

Judge Luttig, NeoCon and alleged StrictConstructionist and, a darling of the Federalist Society just came out against the administration's assertions of absolute power vested in the Executive Branch too. He flatly denied their attempt to change the rules again around the Padilla case.

Like Russ Feingold is saying, Why ask for permission on anything if in fact, the President's powers are unlimitted? That is a totalitarian argument.

This argument is not bertween conservatives and liberals. It's between constitutionalists and enablers of empire.

Skip, not everything is about winning elections. Winning elections is good, but protecting freedom in America is good too.

JRA, it isn't about crimes or criminals, it's about people who may have something to do with people who may have something to do with people who may have something we think may be bad in mind. Courts, rules of evidence, probable cause, innocent until proven guilty, habeus corpus--that stuff is all there to keep the government from jerking people around on a vague whim. Those things are all there precisely so that the government keeps its police powers focused on crime and criminals. That's all stuff the current administration is doing their best to weaken in the name of national security.

We had a President not that long ago who thought it was perfectly appropriate to break into a psychiatrist's office looking for information about a patient and to break into the campaign headquarters of the opposing party looking for political info. Hint: Richard Nixon did not authorize the Watergate break-in because the Democrats were guilty of a crime. Two of the Watergate burglars were former FBI agents and several had ties to the CIA. The people who run the government are in a unique position to use all kinds of information against people.

It isn't about whether or not you are honest. You think everyone in government is above manipulating information because they don't like someone's politics or have a personal grudge? You think no one in government would even think of using police powers to gain a financial or political advantage? You think the government never just makes mistakes? You might want to check with Brandon Mayfield on that last one.

It doesn't even have to be you they go after for it to be a bad thing for you. You think if Karl Rove has carte blanche to wiretap anyone he wants he isn't going to eventually get around to Ron Wyden or John McCain?

Slowly chipping away at the protections and freedoms we have as Americans is not as dramatic as blowing things up but over time could prove to be equally deadly.

JRA--

I just love how you use the whole "you're with us, or against us" mentality on this.

My husband, who is a Republican, supports Bush, and is an Army vet says the same thing-- the "war on terrorism" is not the same thing as "being at war."

I completely understand the situation and have plenty comprehension in regards to the so-called "war on terrorism." Adding the word "war" to it does not put us at war. Otherwise we've been at war for quite some time now-- the war on drugs.

Skip from Gresham--

Actually, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. I've been quite involved in liberal/progressive politics for years including protests. I've already done some of the process to see about getting my FBI file, and I've learned it's more than a handful of pages. It's not out of the ordinary for people who disagree with the Administration, and are vocal about it, to be watched. My political work while living in Texas almost assuredly put me and my family on Bush's list of people to watch.

Doretta - interesting you would bring up Brandon Mayfield, because in that case, a warrant was issued and an arrest was made. Obviously, they were wrong, but procedure was followed. In my opinion, the one thing they did do wrong (besides catch the wrong guy) was to leak damaging material about him to the press. There is no reason we should know the name Brandon Mayfield. The fact that we do is a travesty and I feel sorry for Mr. Mayfield. Of course, while terrorist suspects are being spied on, no press leaks should occur.

I noted the Mayfield case only as an example of the government making mistakes. (Kind of cute how you make a big deal of leaking to the press and put the minor detail of arresting and incarcerating an innocent man in parentheses.) But now that you bring it up, where do you suppose Mr. Mayfield would be today had there been no Spanish law enforcement insisting that the FBI had the wrong guy, no defense attorney and no court supervising? Say he'd gone on a business trip to Spain and they'd picked him up there as an "enemy combatant"?

I was born in the 70s, so my records are from the 90's on (how do you say the current decade? The 00's? The 2000s?). I know if one hadn;t been started prior to 1997, that's when one was started for sure-- I worked for a U.S. Congressman. Besides working events with President & Mrs. Clinton and VP Gore, we also had a threat come into our office. I had a man sit there and tell me he was going to kill the mayor, congressman, president, etc. All the while I couldn't use the "panic button," since the previous Congressman's staff had disconnected it because they were mad they lost (just one of many things they did to the office and the things in it).

We had an FBI agent come in and do a thorough interview with me, including my full name, DOB, SSN, etc. I was told that if I didn't have a file already, one would be started. But as much as I was involved in activities prior to that, I'm sure I had one.

I'm waiting to find out how much it's going to cost so I can get a copy of the file. I'm interested to see what's in it.

But I agree that the right-wing had been better at getting their issues out-- and framing ours. We need to do a lot better.

Let me assure you, JRA, I'm not blind and any mistrust I may have for President Bush has been earned by him.

I'm not accusing the government of randomly incarcerating people for no reason. They had a reason for incarcerating Mr. Mayfield, it just turned out to be wrong.

You only underscore my point when you explain that Mr. Mayfield was investigated and let go. He got to go to court. He got a lawyer. He got to challenge the evidence against him. Now you tell me what would have happened if two things about his case had been different. What if he had coincidentally had a perfectly legitimate reason to be in Spain, or worse, the Middle East, when his fingerprint got spit out by the computer and what if the Spanish government had not already matched the fingerprint to a known person if interest in Europe?

We've already officially admitted that a substantial number of people we've been keeping prisoner since 9/11 were innocent people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. We've released some of them only after years of incarceration. Once we have them, proving them innocent has not been a priority.

What's been happening in the last few years is not the worst of it. It all really has been, at least mostly, an attempt to make us safer. Human nature and human history makes the probability very close to 100% that if we grow our essentially unsupervised surveillance and incarceration capabilities those activities will become the normal routine and people will learn to use them in ever more egregious ways.