Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (8339)	1/5/2006 7:39:55 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541701

It's a false straw-man choice designed to endorse a position that was not able to gain widespread support on its own merits, like wiretapping without warrants. Why are you so sure this is the case? I agree that it could be, but it isn't necessarily. It could also be quite legitimate. And even if the poll were deliberately deceptive, it still tells us something useful. Let me explain how I come at this. I have a background in the facilitation of consensus decision making. If I had a mixed group of people in a room the purpose of which was to come up with a consensus on how to approach the monitoring of communications between the bad guys and potential enemy agents who were US persons, I would execute a careful plan working the question through a series of steps. You try to get agreement one step at a time and you shut down any discussion that gets ahead of the plan. Let me tell you, keeping the group focused on one step at a time is a really tough job. Everyone wants to propose final solutions and rush to the end. It's a deliberate, rigorous process and it works amazingly well. (The people who trained me were with Carter at Camp David when they got that ME agreement.) One of the first substantive questions to be determined in this case is exactly what the poll question asked. By no means is that the end of the process. There is a lot more detail to work out, but that's the legitimate first step. You get agreement on first things first. Do you or don't you want the government monitoring this? Everything flows from that. So, that's how I approach this. "If you don't find that too complicated." <g> Our political processes are not conducive to strong analysis and group problem solving. If you were going to solve this problem right, answering that question would be part of the process. That's not to say that's what the pollsters were doing in this case, but it's what they could have been doing, and it's something would need to be done in order to solve the problem.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (8339)	1/5/2006 5:51:15 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541701

"The Pro-war Libertarian Quiz How far are you willing to go to win the War on Terror? Matt Welch By now, we all know the pattern: 1) A new revelation is published or broadcast about a controversial new policy or by-product of the War on Terror. (Abu Ghraib/torture, extraordinary rendition, the outing of Valerie Plame, an alleged plan to attack Iran, secret propaganda in Iraq, FISA-free NSA surveillance of Americans, and so on.) 2) Some supporters of Washington's foreign policy wonder whether the reporter or news organization or leaker who revealed the information might be guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy. 3) The media, Democrats, and anti-war activists are criticized for piling on, for ignoring worse crimes committed by the enemy, and for hysterically exaggerating the underlying issue. 4) Think-pieces are written about how this controversial or possibly illegal policy should actually be legalized and embraced. 5) Some self-described small-government conservatives and libertarians exasperatedly ask if critics of the policy understand that we're at war, and explain how this latest kerfuffle illustrates why libertarians should never be invited to the grown-ups' table when discussing foreign policy. I bring this up not necessarily to criticize supporters of George Bush's Executive-Power grabs, nor to play quien es mas libertarian (a game I generally lose), nor to belittle the real contributions to the debate they may have made during the previous go-rounds. But rather, I'm interested in breaking the cycle for a moment, stepping back, and asking the Glenn Reynoldses and Thomas Sowells of the world one question: How far is too far in the War on Terror? I figure since their approach certainly has more resonance within the White House than mine, the answers would provide a more accurate weathervane than my feverish imagination. And given the eternal foreign policy divides within the libertarian big tent, it may help clarify the differences between camps. The question is a bit open-ended, so here are 10 yes/no hypotheticals. My answer to every one is "no": 1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval? 2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell? 3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen? 4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced? 5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war? 6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases? 7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it? 8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime? 9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand? 10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public? My belief, crudely summarized, is not only that you do not need to imitate totalitarians to beat them, but that it doesn't actually help. But that's just me; before the next scandal cycle of bloggery bickering begins, I'd love to know where my pro-war friends draw the line. I'd love to know." reason.com