You know, again.
A secret CIA-Treasury program to track financial records of millions of Americans is the latest installment in an expansion of executive authority in the name of fighting terrorism. The administration doesn’t apologize for President Bush’s aggressive take on presidential powers. Vice President Dick Cheney even boasts about it.
Bush has made broad use of his powers, authorizing warrantless wiretaps, possibly collecting telephone records on millions of Americans, holding suspected terrorists overseas without legal protections and using up to 6,000 National Guard members to help patrol the border with Mexico.
That’s in addition to the vast anti-terrorism powers Congress granted him in the recently extended Patriot Act.
But it’s not a fishing expedition. At least that’s what they say — and I’ve been practicing law long enough to know that when someone says they’re not fishing, they are.
It never ends with these people. And there seems to be no end to the justifications and rationalizations provided by their supporters (I’m sure the usual suspects will show up to cite the same inapplicable case in comments), who seem to have no problem whatsoever with the erosion of their civil rights. Or perhaps it’s just that they don’t imagine that the government will ever turn against them — just, you know, the criminals and the terrorists.
A few months ago I was watching Real Time With Bill Maher, which is often a frustrating exercise given his misogyny and the legitimacy he gives Ann Coulter just because he wants to do her. But Helen Thomas or someone like that was on, so I watched. And one of the guests was D.L. Hughley. The discussion turned to the then-just-revealed vast telephone monitoring program. He pointed out that this feeling of being watched, of being monitored, was something that black people put up with their whole lives and that white people were now getting a taste of it. And they don’t like it.
Polls show that Americans generally accept some erosion of civil liberties if they think it makes them safer from the possibility of terrorist attacks.
Still, Bush’s war on terrorism is an open-ended one. Constitutional scholars suggest there are limits.
“At some point, the Constitution can’t bear the kind of continued strains that are being imposed by the demands of the fight on terrorism,” said Harold J. Krent, dean and professor of law at Kent College of Law in Chicago.,
“What I am worried about is that there is a potential for amassing huge databases of individuals — linked by phone records, linked by financial records — that can be kept and used without any kind of real oversight. It’s frightening,” Krent said.
And this is an open-ended operation, since the War on Terra is never-ending. Which means that this is likely not the end of it. Who knows what’s next? Are they looking through medical records, with the assistance of insurance companies or HMOs (you know, like the one Bill Frist’s family owns) or large hospital conglomerates. We already know that panty-sniffers like Kansas AG Phill Kline are ready to abuse medical records for political ends. Sure, the stated purpose may be to “look for terrorists,” but once the database is in place, what’s to prevent someone leaking private medical information to the press or an employer to sink a political enemy or a whistleblower. Look how devastating the news of Thomas Eagleton’s psychiatric treatment was for his political career and George McGovern’s campaign. Nixon’s people raided the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist to discredit him and exact revenge for his leaking of the Pentagon Papers.
Imagine, then, the damage that could be done should the abortion of a political candidate or close family member come to light. Or psychiatric treatment (not as big of a problem these days for Congressional office — Debbie Stabenow deftly deflated this issue when she was running for Congress 10 or so years ago by being unapologetic about her treatment for depression). Or cancer treatment. Or Crohn’s disease. Or just about anything that should be private.
I’m sure the usual suspects will not only justify the current program, but accuse me of scaremongering, exaggerating or an overactive paranoid imagination. But how many times do the critics have to be proven right before the whining about conspiracy theories stops?
{ 10 comments }
Yeah, but how do we stop it ? Unfortunately, I think that we live in a time where people are scared of everything and especially of each other and that it is for that reason that they will accept less privacy if it means getting the “bad people” those who want to get them. I am starting to believe that the only way to stop it is to show that less privacy doesn’t equal more security.
“Polls show that Americans generally accept some erosion of civil liberties if they think it makes them safer from the possibility of terrorist attacks.”
Just one of the many points of Facism.
You know when it will stop. Everyone knows when it will stop.
When it starts to come back to bite them on the ass. Those who allowed certain things to go unnoticed, unannounced, and silent. The media. When enough people (you know the repugs) are exposed to the effects of their own pandering, then it will stop.
Then again I could be wishful thinking.
D. L. Hughley is never anything but great on that show. They should let him take over.
Would you, as an attorney, comment about these SCOTUS cases?
I wouldn’t mind many protests to this if I didn’t know it was partisan. If you can’t investigate this you cannot investigate ANY group by these means. I am a Libertarian and am very leary when a non libertarian cries privacy. They usually don’t really mean it it is just privacy for them.. I believe in privacy for all, even the gorups that give YOU nightmares.
I think this particular invasion of privacy will end since I imagine it impacts more readers of the Wall St. Journal than the New York Times. Rich people (read: Republican contributors) don’t like people getting in their financial business. I’d also think that major corporations might not want the government to look too closely at their transactions. I’m a liberal, a Democrat, and I don’t have overseas financial transactions, so what do I have to fear? But I still don’t like this, and I wouldn’t like it (and all of the other invasions of privacy) if it was President Gore who was overstepping his executive power boundaries. And Steve, I think most liberals would agree with you . . . that privacy for all, not just liberals.
I am afraid that many who should be sounding louder alarms, those who have the public ear, are afraid to sound afraid, to sound alarmist, or worse yet, a little loony.
I fear this more than for individual sufferings, even though that is in itself noxious enough.
I see this as a sign of the executive having the ability to monitor the activities of different demographics of the population, to be able to monitor possible objection or dissent and the ability to take action to stop it swifty, quietly and effectively. Also I am sure such copious information about certain demographics will also give great ability to direct various misinformation campaigns or see for exact where ‘the enemy lies’ and take action accordingly.
It does sound loopy, but damn it someone has got to come out and say it. Once the box is open and Pandora is out, there is no possible way of putting her back in. It is obvious that many in congress on both sides of the aisle, if not all, have put up little fuss about these executive over reaches and all I can think is that they all cannot resist the possibility of power it also gives them as long as they keep some positive association with those in the w.h.
For those who don’t have the association priviledge, I simply think they only yearn for their chance to enjoy the imperial court.
I’m afraid the time at which people will suddenly realize that their personal sovereinty and civil liberties have been usurped will be far too late.
The people are misdirected yes, but on the whole I think they know they are being taken down the road. The tragedy is that they can’t see that repubs, like the pedo who lures the neglected child with promises of love, the one who coddles and promises so much is exploiting them the most.
I highly doubt this program is targeting foreign or terrorist transactions exclusively. That’s what they say, and that’s what the Patriot Act specifies, but then how do they explain this:
Some couple in Texas decided to pay off their credit debt all at once and sent their credit card company a check for 6,000 bucks. When the husband checked his bank statement he noticed the check had been frozen, so he called up and asked what was going on. It turns out the transaction had been flagged and was under investigation by the Dept. of Homeland Security.
I doubt this is the only story out there where the DHS has snooped into the bank records or credit card transactions of non-teorrorist, law abiding US citizens.
If the President and members of congress can scream that the New York Times is guilty of treason then how long will it take them to arrest left leaning bloggers for treason?
Comments on this entry are closed.