Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calling a Spade a Spade
Mercurial Times ^ | December 3, 2001 | Aaron Armitage

Posted on 12/03/2001 10:00:13 PM PST by Mercuria

Even in the worst of times, there's always something to be grateful for, a silver lining in the darkest cloud. For my part, I'm grateful the attacks and the events after it didn't happen while Bill Clinton was in office. Clinton was fundamentally in love with power. As he did after the bombing in Oklahoma City, and school shootings, he would have taken advantage of the deaths of other Americans for his own political advancement. In an example of extreme hypocrisy, his backers would call his grubby exploitation honoring the dead, and would accuse anyone who disagrees of having no concern for the loss of life. I've never understood the attitude that the way to memorialize the dead is by giving up freedom, the thing that makes us Americans. All I can say is, I'm glad Republicans don't have that attitude.

Picture what Clinton might have done, through crass political manipulation of the crisis. It would have been an excuse for a federal power grab. I'd imagine that he would get laws passed making it legal for his jack-booted thugs to search homes without even telling the person whose property is searched. He's the kind of dangerous politician to have done that, and more. He might have gone further, letting federal law enforcement track what content a person accesses over the internet, and, in his boundless desire to have unlimited authority over ordinary people, he might have required a lower standard of proof than probable cause. Maybe the only requirement would be that it's relevant to an investigation. I'm glad Bush is in office instead.

In 1998, the Clinton administration released plans to implement a set of regulations called "Know Your Customer", which would have required banks to determine the sources of customers' funds, track their transactions, and report anything considered unusual. The reports would be investigated by something called FinCEN, which would keep the records around for the feds to snoop through, regardless of whether there was any evidence of a crime. The whole idea was abandoned after a public outcry. Bill Clinton thus showed himself to be an enemy of financial privacy, and given what we know about his unscrupulousness he wouldn't have hesitated to exploit the situation to resume his attack. Maybe he would have revived Know Your Customer, or maybe he would have attacked privacy some other way. Maybe he would have made all retailers follow the rules banks already follow under the misnamed Bank Secrecy Act.

On that subject, that Democrats give their bills gimmicky, misleading names has always annoyed me. It's as if they know that political truth in advertising would undo them. If the Bank Secrecy Act had been called the Spy Bank Accounts Act, nobody would have voted for it. Clinton probably would've bundled all of it together in a single bill with a gimmick name like the "Patriot Act". I'm glad the honorable man in the White House now would never do something like that.

Beyond Clinton himself, there was his authoritarian Attorney General, Janet Reno. The Butcher of Waco would have plunged headlong into whatever tyranny she thought she could get away with. That was her nature, seeing no reason not to have a police state and every reason to have one, and thus subjugating ordinary people to official thuggery every time she could. By now she might have hundreds of people held incommunicado in jail, without charges, and in secret. The worst fears of the black helicopter crowd would be coming true. That woman, I tell you, had no respect whatsoever for our basic legal traditions. She might even have gotten the FBI to spy on political and religious organizations, creating the opportunity for purely political investigations like J. Edgar Hoover used to have.

But maybe I've taken it too far. Even if she wanted to, the public would never stand for that. War or not, there would be enough public complaint to stop that. And even if the public is too complacent, at least we now have good men in office, who would never take advantage of that kind of complacency.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: libertarians; paleolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-198 next last
To: Southack
"Packets of information passing through computers is fine, that's how the internet works. A person other than the intended receiver reading it, catching it as it passes over his computer or at any other time, is wrong unless there's a warrant."

That's basically a contradiction in terms. Every packet of data on the internet is read by software on multiple machines, none of whom will end up being the intended receiver. A router in particular will examine numerous packets, but only pass a few through it. A cable modem will see every packet sent into its local loop, yet it will only pass those with a certain IP on to its owner. Yet you want to claim that the cable-modem is wrong to read messages that don't belong to its owner. That just isn't how the Internet is designed.

Seeing a difference between humans and computers is a contradiction in terms? LOL

I don't doubt you'll continue to act as if no one had ever thought of such a distinction.

121 posted on 12/04/2001 11:10:48 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Registered
You know nothing of the sort.

What else am I supposed to make of #98?

122 posted on 12/04/2001 11:14:52 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Well, that's not really a good analogy. After all, the mom and the child molester will never change places, but elections do change officeholders. Suppose, however, you were deciding whether or not the little girl should be left alone with the guy who lives next door. Not that one particular person, but the person next door whoever he is (this is to make sure it stays in line with the way our political system works, powers gained by one president being almost always retained for others). Now, say the guy next door right now is a nice guy, but in a short period of time he'll move. You know that the last guy there was a child molester, and there's a very good chance whoever replaces the current resident will be like the last one. What do you do then?
123 posted on 12/04/2001 11:22:40 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Southack
unrepresented without any proof (and be taken seriously)?!

One word to you:
Manzanar

124 posted on 12/05/2001 2:19:25 AM PST by from occupied ga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; Southack; Registered
As a dispassionate outside observer of your debate with Southack, I must say that Southack handed your head to you.

Your smugness does you no good in the process. It makes you appear like an average politician tap-dancing around specific questions rather than answering them.


125 posted on 12/05/2001 3:10:08 AM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria; A.J.Armitage
YEEOOW!! What a perfect return in this tennis match! You ACED it A.J.!! Thanks...and I haven't even read the replies yet!

BTTT

126 posted on 12/05/2001 5:50:53 AM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BillofRights
Ping!You may just like this!
127 posted on 12/05/2001 5:51:37 AM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; Registered
Are you saying Clinton had prinicples? LOL! Registered doesn't "follow politicians" if he is not defending Clinton (like others do). That's obvious.
128 posted on 12/05/2001 6:04:59 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Save this for later. It will come in handy
129 posted on 12/05/2001 7:15:43 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Or maybe this one
130 posted on 12/05/2001 7:17:19 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
Thanks for the ping. I did like that!
131 posted on 12/05/2001 7:54:20 AM PST by BillofRights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"Seeing a difference between humans and computers is a contradiction in terms?"

Probably, but that wasn't what I was trying to convey. I was trying to show that it is a contradiction in philosophy to be OK with some government machines/software reading your specific internet data traffic (as they must do to determine where to correctly route your data packets or to even diagnose technical problems which are unrelated to you or your data), but not OK with other government software/machines reading your internet data traffic (say, with software like Carnivore).

Having a problem with government software examining open, unencrypted data traffic on the information super-hiway is akin to having a problem with police offices watching your car travel a public interstate hiway. You seem to be OK with one but not the other.

132 posted on 12/05/2001 9:53:20 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"You know that the last guy there was a child molester, and there's a very good chance whoever replaces the current resident will be like the last one. What do you do then?"

Precisely. That was my point. It matters which person is in there, not the generic principle that the kid either can or can't be allowed into that place.

133 posted on 12/05/2001 9:56:51 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Southack
I was trying to show that it is a contradiction in philosophy to be OK with some government machines/software reading your specific internet data traffic (as they must do to determine where to correctly route your data packets or to even diagnose technical problems which are unrelated to you or your data), but not OK with other government software/machines reading your internet data traffic (say, with software like Carnivore).

So now you're telling me the purpose of the software doesn't matter. LOL, again.

134 posted on 12/05/2001 10:13:54 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Precisely. That was my point. It matters which person is in there, not the generic principle that the kid either can or can't be allowed into that place.

I've noticed a pattern. You come up with a point you think is clever, and then it has to be painfully spoonfed to you past a wall of non-comprehension why it isn't. And then you ask the other guy why he doesn't admit he was wrong, usually just before the exact point you ought to admit that.

On the above, that's NOT what I said. Now PAY ATTENTION.

What I said was, if you have a choice of letting whoever lives next door be alone with the little girl or not, without regard for who it is, and you know the guy next door is frequently replaced, and the last guy was a child molester, and there's a good chance that the next guy will be too, you decide not to let her be alone with the next door neighbor.

I that know with actual next door neighbors, you can let one be alone with the kids and not the next one. I also know that we don't have the option of letting one president have a particular power, but not the next one. If you let Bush have a particular power, and Hillery gets elected in 2004, she's going to have that power.

You see, in our system power doesn't go to particular persons, it goes to offices. We don't know who the next president will be, but we do know there will be a democrat in there eventually.

Now do you get, or should I use bolded all-caps?

135 posted on 12/05/2001 10:25:41 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Here is a Freep-mail from A.J. to me:

"You're a lunatic."

And just why would I be a lunatic? I'd back off of the name calling, partner.

136 posted on 12/05/2001 10:30:26 AM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
And just why would I be a lunatic?

Because you think being this guy means winning. It doesn't, it mean being jaw-droppingly obtuse.

137 posted on 12/05/2001 10:48:01 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
mean

Means.

138 posted on 12/05/2001 11:09:26 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"What I said was, if you have a choice of letting whoever lives next door be alone with the little girl or not, without regard for who it is, and you know the guy next door is frequently replaced, and the last guy was a child molester, and there's a good chance that the next guy will be too, you decide not to let her be alone with the next door neighbor."

Yes, and I think that's a good example of why your blind adherence to principles over the person is wrongheaded. If Tiger Woods or Mr. Rogers moves in next door, you're going to throw out your former, generic "principled" policy of not letting your child go next door to see your neighbor; the policy that you had in place when your next door neighbor was a convicted child rapist, previously. You see, the person in question really does make a difference.

"I also know that we don't have the option of letting one president have a particular power, but not the next one. "

You mean like letting one President have the line item veto, briefly, but then no other President got it? Or like initiating a prohibition on alcohol during one or two administrations and then repealing that power for other administrations? Or like reigning in Presidential powers with something like the War Powers Act so that other Presidents didn't have the power that one President in particular had?

"Now do you get, or should I use bolded all-caps?"

Goodness, not the bolded CAPS treatment! No, anything but that! Logic, facts, and reason would actually be preferred, if you can find it in you for once.

139 posted on 12/05/2001 11:39:30 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"So now you're telling me the purpose of the software doesn't matter."

Well, that's too generic of a statement for me to really want to get too far into, but no, the purpose of the software doesn't matter in regards to the question of whether or not the data traffic is in the public domain in the first place.

Either sniffers have a right to view your (and everyone else's) coincidental data packets while they are diagnosing technical problems AND other software on other machines have a similar right to examine data packets OR only the intended reciever of the data has the right to read packets (which would shut down the Internet because reading packets is REQUIRED for routing and technical diagnostics).

140 posted on 12/05/2001 11:52:49 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-198 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson