Quote:

---

The left turns compliant on violating civil liberties


Where have all the liberals gone?

President Obama, who as a Democratic senator accused the Bush administration of violating civil liberties in the name of security, now vigorously defends his own administration’s collection of Americans’ phone records and Internet activities.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said he thinks Congress has done sufficient intelligence oversight. His evidence? Opinion polls.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi defended the programs’ legality and said she wants Edward Snowden prosecuted for leaking details of the secret operations.

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, accused Snowden of treason and defended false testimony given to her committee by the director of national intelligence, who in March had denied the programs’ existence.

With some exceptions, progressive lawmakers and the liberal commentariat have been passive and acquiescent toward the secret spying programs, which would have infuriated the left had they been the work of a Republican administration.

When libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced legislation last week to curb the surveillance powers, he had no co-sponsors. When he held a news conference this week to unveil a lawsuit claiming the surveillance is unconstitutional, five members of Congress joined him — all Republicans.

I kept looking for liberal dissent — and then, on Wednesday morning, the news wires reported that a group called Voice of Resistance was meeting outside the Capitol, where demonstrators would proclaim Snowden a hero and flog an effigy of Republican Rep. Peter King (N.Y.), one of the first to brand Snowden a traitor. I arrived at the appointed place and time but found no protest. Instead, there were six journalists and a lone demonstrator, who was wearing an antiabortion baseball cap. He told me the group was actually a right-wing outfit. “The others are parking the car,” he explained, before turning the topic to Rush Limbaugh.

Polling this week by The Post and Pew Research Center produced discouraging evidence that Democrats have shed their suspicion of government overreach now that one of their own is in charge. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats say that terrorism investigations should trump privacy as the government’s main concern, compared with 51?percent in 2006, when the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program had come to light. Then, 37?percent of Democrats found the NSA’s actions acceptable, compared with 64?percent now. (Republicans went in the other direction, suddenly becoming more privacy-conscious.)

Certainly, there are differences between now and then. Today, the program operates under court supervision and has at least the veneer of congressional approval (the administration circumvents the law’s requirement that only “relevant” records can be collected by claiming that all phone records of all Americans are relevant). And it remains to be seen whether Snowden is a true whistleblower or somebody who means his country harm.

Yet it is jarring to see the left so compliant now that the surveillance has been sanctioned by a Democratic president. Even if the programs ultimately prove defensible, isn’t it worth finding out what they really are, before liberals accept a suspension of civil liberties they may come to regret?

The weakness of the liberals’ argument for standing down was displayed by Reid, who assured reporters this week that Senate intelligence committee members “have done their very utmost, in my opinion, to conduct oversight. And that’s why the American people, in polls — two polls that I saw today — support what is happening with trying to stop terrorists from doing bad things to us.”

While Reid tests the political winds to determine which constitutional rights Americans should have, those who should be overseeing the program are instead defending it with a just-trust-me logic. Feinstein declared that “these programs are within the law.” The top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), promised that “we’re not violating any constitutional rights.” Both said they’d like to see more about the program declassified, but their past efforts to produce more disclosure have been weak.

There are a few Democrats who have upheld the party’s tradition of championing civil liberties — such as John Conyers (Mich.), who is introducing a bill with conservative Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) to curtail the program, and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced legislation backed by eight senators requiring more disclosure of secret court rulings.

But the Conyers bill is likely to go nowhere in the House, and Reid was cool to the Merkley proposal, saying only that “I’ll be happy to take a look.”

If he does look, he’ll find that they’re doing what progressives should do: Protecting the people from a too-secretive government.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The Occubabies are just waitng for orders.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The Occubabies are just waitng for orders.

---

Quote:

---

Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez said after Congress on Wednesday was given a classified briefing by NSA officials on the agency's previously secret surveillance activities:

"What we learned in there is significantly more than what is out in the media today. . . . I can't speak to what we learned in there, and I don't know if there are other leaks, if there's more information somewhere, if somebody else is going to step up, but I will tell you that I believe it's the tip of the iceberg . . . . I think it's just broader than most people even realize, and I think that's, in one way, what astounded most of us, too."

The Congresswoman is absolutely right: what we have reported thus far is merely "the tip of the iceberg" of what the NSA is doing in spying on Americans and the world. She's also right that when it comes to NSA spying, "there is significantly more than what is out in the media today", and that's exactly what we're working to rectify.

But just consider what she's saying: as a member of Congress, she had no idea how invasive and vast the NSA's surveillance activities are. Sen. Jon Tester, who is a member of the Homeland Security Committee, said the same thing, telling MSNBC about the disclosures that "I don't see how that compromises the security of this country whatsoever" and adding: "quite frankly, it helps people like me become aware of a situation that I wasn't aware of before because I don't sit on that Intelligence Committee."

How can anyone think that it's remotely healthy in a democracy to have the NSA building a massive spying apparatus about which even members of Congress, including Senators on the Homeland Security Committee, are totally ignorant and find "astounding" when they learn of them? How can anyone claim with a straight face that there is robust oversight when even members of the Senate Intelligence Committee are so constrained in their ability to act that they are reduced to issuing vague, impotent warnings to the public about what they call radical "secret law" enabling domestic spying that would "stun" Americans to learn about it, but are barred to disclose what it is they're so alarmed by?

---

Quote:

---

With some exceptions, progressive lawmakers...Feinstein... Reid... Pelosi

---

Quote:

---

I kept looking for liberal dissent..

---

Quote:

---

and the liberal commentariat

---

Quote:

---

have been passive and acquiescent toward the secret spying programs, which would have infuriated the left had they been the work of a Republican administration.

---

Quote:

---

Yet it is jarring to see the left so compliant now that the surveillance has been sanctioned by a Democratic president.

---

Quote:

---

Sixty-nine percent of Democrats say that terrorism investigations should trump privacy as the government’s main concern, compared with 51?percent in 2006, when the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program had come to light. Then, 37?percent of Democrats found the NSA’s actions acceptable, compared with 64?percent now. (Republicans went in the other direction, suddenly becoming more privacy-conscious.)

---

Quote:

---

In 2006, 75 percent [registered Republicans] said the program was acceptable, and 23 percent said it was not. Now 52 percent find it acceptable, and 47 percent unacceptable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Anyway, I could go on, but I think you get my points:

"Liberals" and "the left" are not represented by registered Dems or the MSM. Why he keeps referring to people like Feinstein and Reid as "liberals" is so far beyond the truth, clearly he's invested in selling this lie.

---

Quote:

---

To most people, Democrats are "the left" of our political spectrum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Apparently, liberals have gone here...

We Refused to Be Part of the NSA's Dark Blanket

FOCUS | Edward Snowden's Second Interview From Hong Kong

America's Secret Surveillance Empire - Violation of Earth Constitution?

Edward Snowden: Saving Us From the United Stasi of America

More Americans See Snowden As a 'Patriot' Than Traitor

How to Protect Your Communications From the NSA

NSA Mines User Data of Facebook, Google and Others

more...
http://readersupportednews.org/

You went to the Washington Post, fer chrissakes! And they, in turn, looked at Congress, the MSM, and registered Democrats as "liberals"? That's like looking at Republicans to find out where all the isolationist Libertarians went.

Quote:

---

With some exceptions, progressive lawmakers...Feinstein... Reid... Pelosi

---

I wrote to Diane Feinstein before authorization of use of force (Iraq), urging her to vote "no". I got back a smarmy form email saying that, well, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she had information that I didn't have, and therefore her decisions were just way more intelligent than mine. What an ass. Feinstein, IMHO, has NEVER been a "liberal", "progressive", "lefist" or whatever you want to call it, in terms of "national security". Neither has Reid. And Pelosi is pretty 50-50.

Quote:

---

I kept looking for liberal dissent..

---

I could have told him where to look, but he kept looking on the ceiling and in his shoes.

Quote:

---

and the liberal commentariat

---

Who? It would be nice to know who's in this category, according to him. He clearly doesn't listen to Pacifica Radio or watch LinkTV or read RSN or look into roughly a dozen TRULY liberal media. Maybe he means Rachel Maddow as his single example. Who the fuck knows?

Quote:

---

have been passive and acquiescent toward the secret spying programs, which would have infuriated the left had they been the work of a Republican administration.

---

Not having had the time, it would be interesting to see a real, fair comparison of between how politicians voted "then" and how they voted "now". But that's not what this article does. It picks three individuals out of 535. Like the snippet of Maxine Waters, my radar goes up whenever an article unbalances its information so heavily. Maybe the author really DOES have a point to make, but we'd never know from this data.

Quote:

---

Yet it is jarring to see the left so compliant now that the surveillance has been sanctioned by a Democratic president.

---

Registered Democrats represent "the left"? What is this guy on?

Quote:

---

Sixty-nine percent of Democrats say that terrorism investigations should trump privacy as the government’s main concern, compared with 51?percent in 2006, when the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program had come to light. Then, 37?percent of Democrats found the NSA’s actions acceptable, compared with 64?percent now. (Republicans went in the other direction, suddenly becoming more privacy-conscious.)

---

So neither Democrats nor Republicans fully represent principled positions. The article, which is pretty cagey about the Republicans ACTUAL position in 2006, fails to mention this

Quote:

---

In 2006, 75 percent [registered Republicans] said the program was acceptable, and 23 percent said it was not. Now 52 percent find it acceptable, and 47 percent unacceptable.

---

As far as I can tell, registered Republicans as whole are even shittier than Dems, with only 23% taking a principled stand on privacy, no matter who is in office.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/n-s-a-monitoring-and-pa
rtisan-hypocrisy/

Anyway, I could go on, but I think you get my points:

"Liberals" and "the left" are not represented by registered Dems or the MSM. Why he keeps referring to people like Feinstein and Reid as "liberals" is so far beyond the truth, clearly he's invested in selling this lie.

As a whole, registered Dems take a more principled position on privacy (31% finding intrusion unacceptable when Obama is in office) than Republicans (23% finding in unacceptable when Bush was in office) but neither party's registered members are stellar. Which pretty much tracks their voting record: Overall, Dems are better than Repubs, but even in the Dem party it doesn't make a majority. That's why I vote person-by-person.

---

Quote:

---

Libs haven't gone, we finally found an issue that we all agree on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Libs haven't gone, we finally found an issue that we all agree on.

---

What mean this "we", Kimo Sabe? I have no idea who you are, what you stand for, and who you're affiliated with, but I DO know that you behave pretty trollishly. Why should I ally with YOU?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I can't help what "most people" think.

---

Quote:

---

Even though ALL these scandals have been done by libs, you'll vote the the Democrat ticket next year.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Even though ALL these scandals have been done by libs, you'll vote the the Democrat ticket next year.

---

Well, that didn't last long. I didn't vote the Dem ticket last year, what makes you think I would next year?

As far as you being a troll, I'm merely commenting on your behavior here, not on your political affiliation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The point of the article is, supposedly, to bring some information to the reader, no? What would it have cost the author to consistently use the term "Democrat" when that is exactly who he was referring to? Conflating terms as he does is a clear sign that this author intends to mislead rather than inform.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The point of the article is, supposedly, to bring some information to the reader, no? What would it have cost the author to consistently use the term "Democrat" when that is exactly who he was referring to? Conflating terms as he does is a clear sign that this author intends to mislead rather than inform.

---

Pretty much all the MSM uses "liberal" as a synonym for Democrat and "the Left" as a synonym for the Democratic Party.

Sorry.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Libs haven't gone, we finally found an issue that we all agree on.

---

What mean this "we", Kimo Sabe? I have no idea who you are, what you stand for, and who you're affiliated with, but I DO know that you behave pretty trollishly. Why should I ally with YOU?

---

Quote:

---

I don't care about the Browncoats thing

---

Quote:

---

now I want Demorats to go away! SUCK IT!

---