First In, First Out
By Thoreau
Via Greenwald, I learn that the far right has made a remarkable discovery: The federal government has an Orwellian bureaucracy called the Department of Homeland Security, an agency that spends vast sums monitoring ordinary citizens and placing people on secret watchlists for suspected involvement in terrorism, with little in the way of accountability. Why, I do declare, I have never heard of such a thing! I, oh my, I must sit down! Somebody get me a cooling drink! Oh, no, my vapors are acting up again! It’s that darn Hussein Obama, isn’t it?
Even worse, this unchecked and dangerous government is now issuing ominous warnings of possible terrorist activity (.pdf) by right-wing extremists, causing conservatives to fear that they may soon be targeted by a government that might wield dangerous and unchecked powers and show no regard for human rights.
Um, conservatives, if you’re still able to read this, if the NSA has not yet cut off your communications in preparation for the raid, please sit down for a moment before you finish packing the car and heading for the compound in the hills, because there’s something you need to know: WE FVCKING TOLD YOU SO!!!!! WE TOLD YOU THIS EVERY G*DD@MN DAY FOR 8 G*DD@MN YEARS!!!!!
Ok, that’s out of the way, now, let’s talk. See, as satisfying as it is to say that I told you so, I really don’t want to see innocent people get their names on dangerous lists for their political and religious beliefs. No, not even Bush supporters. I mean, I may rant a lot, but when the chips are down I don’t really want anybody to wind up on the wrong end of an unchecked and brutal security apparatus. We all need to stick together here.
So, OK, first thing you really oughta do is grit your teeth and donate some money to the ACLU. I do it periodically, and it feels really good. Next, since any one of us could wind up in the Bagram torture chambers, we need to do like the POWs did in Vietnam, and have a code of conduct: First in, first out. If you get dragged off to Bagram (which may be a sequel to a prison camp in Guantanamo, something you probably heard of over the past 8 years) then I will indeed write letters to Congress and donate to the ACLU and take other measures to work for your release. However….first in, first out. So while your release is a priority for me, the release of people who got sent to the torture chambers before you is an even higher priority. It has to be this way, because otherwise the guards could play you guys against each other by dangling the promise of early release.
Deal?
Anyway, some here will probably observe that issuing warnings it not quite the same as sending people to Bagram. I agree. That said, putting names on lists and surveilling people for their opinions is generally a step down a dangerous road, and I don’t want to see conservatives on that list anymore than I want to see liberals on that list. Others might observe that there have indeed been terrorist attacks in this country by right-wing extremists, so watching the nutjobs is not an entirely bad idea. Again, that is true, but governments monitoring groups based on their beliefs have a history of getting it all EPIC FAIL. I mean, there have also been terrorist attacks by Muslims in this country, but that doesn’t excuse sending a con man to a mosque and then leveling dubious charges against the members of the mosque. There have been terrorist attacks by leftwing extremists, but I still don’t know WTF the FBI is hoping to accomplish by spying on Quakers. (Unless they’re trying to spot the next Nixon, in which case, godspeed, agent.) And so forth.
Finally, some will probably speculate that monitoring of right-wing extremists was likely happening before Barack HUSSEIN Obama became President. Again, I agree. I suspect that the Bush administration kept a discrete eye on right wing extremists, partly because of bureaucratic inertia from the 1990’s and partly because if your political strategy involves riling up the crazies you need to keep an eye on them, just in case your strategy works a bit too well. Many a king has been betrayed by one of his own, after all. But even if Bush was doing it too, that doesn’t really excuse anything.
Anyway, I, for one, welcome my new rightwing fellow travelers. All I ask is that they try to remember that a red boot can stomp on a human face as much as a blue boot. OK, you’re done reading this post, now go to the ACLU donation site.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 15, 2009 @ 1:14 am
Ahem.
I said, GO TO THE ACLU DONATION SITE!
Comment by VikingMoose —
April 15, 2009 @ 9:02 am
I LOOKED AT THE TRAP, RAY
(on that “other site”, people are whining about the libural media and how they’re letting BHO get away with everything. lacking insight? hacks? wtf?)
Comment by dhex —
April 15, 2009 @ 9:07 am
i like it when thoreau curses cause it’s like a nigerian scammer took over UO to handle his punctuation.
but yeah this militias 2.0 thing is interesting. i guess it really is the clinton years all over again.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
April 15, 2009 @ 9:18 am
dhex is ragging someone else for his use of the language? Pfft.
Comment by dhex —
April 15, 2009 @ 9:23 am
for his typography, actually.
i know she’s a fuckin’ loony tune, but malkin wrote a book about how internment was great, if not actually totally awesome. you’d think this current trend would be looked upon favorably, especially since we can assume that she’d not get along too well with aryan brotherhood types.
Comment by EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy —
April 15, 2009 @ 11:13 am
Hear, Hear!
Comment by Fraud Guy —
April 15, 2009 @ 11:21 am
Was that a discreet, discrete eye?
Comment by BDB —
April 15, 2009 @ 11:35 am
“(on that “other siteâ€, people are whining about the libural media and how they’re letting BHO get away with everything. lacking insight? hacks? wtf?) ”
Are you talking about H&R or LoneWacko’s site? Anyway, it’s a real pleasure to see the same people who sucked federal cock for eight years shit their pants in fear of the government power *they helped expand*!
Comment by Joshua Holmes —
April 15, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
This is the part I really don’t understand. They spent the whole decade of the 90s shitting themselves over the security apparatus. An R gets the Big Chair, and suddenly they couldn’t do enough to make it scarier and meaner. For fuck’s sake, can’t these shitheads think 4 years in advance?
Comment by dhex —
April 15, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
solowackolo was always down on bush cause he had mexican food once at a white house dinner and senor tinfoil never forgave him.
!venganza para siempre!
Comment by David —
April 15, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
For fuck’s sake, can’t these shitheads think 4 years in advance?
No. People have a tendency to act as though the results of the most recent election represent a permanent change.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 15, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Monitoring people based on their political beliefs makes perfect sense, if you limit it to people whose political beliefs call for violence, and who have a history of acting on those calls.
The Aryan Nation has political beliefs, and sure as hell hope the FBI is keeping tabs on them – within the bounds of the law of course (no warrantless snooping, no entrapment). The Klan sure as hell has political beliefs.
Surely, we can acknowledge the difference between the Klan and the American Friends Service Committee.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 15, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
joe, if the monitoring is as tightly targeted as that, and conducted in accordance with warrants, then I’m on the same page as you here.
Mostly, though, I just love the delicious irony of conservatives *suddenly* noticing all these surveillance powers.
Comment by J sub D —
April 15, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
Earth First?
Greenpeace?
The Communist party?
Trade Unions?
Just askin’.
BTW, I’m on record warning the GOP fellators that they would not always control the executive branch and that a Dem president would be unlikely to give up the powers and authority that Bush the Lesser assumed with the silent acquiescence of a GOP congress.
Comment by mac —
April 15, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Let’s give them a break.
Look how fiscally responsible
they’ve become.
Comment by Russell —
April 15, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
You hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, few on the right will bother to read. Fewer will bother to understand. Their concern about civil liberty lasts only as long as they are the target. As soon as a Muslim or feminist or liberal or anyone on their hate-list is targeted, they will return to defending any and every unconstitutional act.
Comment by gggriff —
April 15, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Well, I have a hard time caring about Bush people going through a little government surveillance, especially after what Nixon did to Lennon and other leftists.
But… yeah. No innocent people should be targeted.
Otherwise, we’re as bad as the Republicans.
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 15, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Earth First?
Greenpeace?
The Communist party?
Trade Unions?
Unless you’re French, I suppose, I don’t see how Greenpeace rates a mention, nor do trade unions qua trade unions. Trade unions trafficking in corruption, yes, but that would go for any organization.
That said, what bothers me is the broader labeling of “right wing”. That could encompass 48% of the population, if we use the last election as a go-by.
FWIW, I was one of the anti-war righties trying to tell other conservatives that they’d never countenance giving a President Hilary a fraction of the authority they were turning over to Dubya.
Comment by dhex —
April 15, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
“Well, I have a hard time caring about Bush people going through a little government surveillance, especially after what Nixon did to Lennon and other leftists.”
that’s why i support capital punishment against italians. look what those fuckers did to jesus!
Comment by Thoreau —
April 15, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
Being part Italian, I need to remind you that we actually blame the Jews. But the dirty little secret, as revealed by Dostoyevsky, is that the real enemy of Jesus was the Spanish Inquisition (and nobody expect them!).
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 15, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
And Dostoyevsky seemed to believe that the Inquisitor had a good point.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 9:21 am
Of those groups, only one – the Communist Party – can fairly be said to have political beliefs that call for political violence. But then, I can’t think of a single episode in American history when the CPUSA was involved in any actual political violence.
Here, let’s compare and contrast:
Earth First. The Aryan Nations.
Greenpeace. (GreenWHAT?) The Imperial Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
The CPUSA. Stormfront.
Trade Unions. Armed groups that preach and train for insurrection.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 9:24 am
But there’s nothing in this report to suggest that “Bush people” or anything but a razor-thin slice of McCain voters (that 48%) would be targeted.
It’s funny – I read this report, and think “tiny fringe of loons,” while so many Republicans read it and think, or at least pretend to think for political purposes, “hey, they’re talking about our base!”
No, they’re not. My Uncle Franny is a Republican – and an Italian! – and this is most certainly not about him.
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 16, 2009 @ 9:48 am
It’s funny – I read this report, and think “tiny fringe of loons,†while so many Republicans read it and think, or at least pretend to think for political purposes, “hey, they’re talking about our base!â€
If the Bush DHS had used the label “left-wing” I don’t think you’d be so irenic, Joe. Rightly so, too, because that kind of label could be expanded to groups like the Kossacks. The problem is that we don’t know where the line is when you use a general qualifier. Napalitano should have eschewed this one.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 10:01 am
As a matter of fact, they did. Early in 2001, the Justice Department released a report titled “Left-Wing Activists Likely to Engage in Cyber-Terrorism,” or something similar. Do you remember the outcry from Democrats? No? You don’t even remember the report, do you? I sure didn’t, because it was absolutely no big deal. As of early 2001, we had absolutely no reason to believe that an obvious observation like “Some left-wingers are hackers” or “Some right-wingers promote anti-government violence” was notable.
But that was early 2001, before we knew the character of the Bush administration. As of 2005 or so, when we knew that they had illegally spied on, for example, the American Friends Service Committee, I would have been bothered by such language, because that particular administration had demonstrated its eagerness to engage in illegal surveillance, threaten those who expose it, and treat the political opposition as being in league with terrorists.
As opposed to the current administration, which roots out Bush-era abuses, end them, and informs Congress of the whole thing. See today’s news.
Please stop projecting onto me, and please stop with the false equivalencies. This narrative that political abuses exist in perfect symmetry on both sides of the spectrum doesn’t hold up to factual scrutiny.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 10:06 am
Here you do, , Derek.
“Left-Wing Extremism: the Current Threat” is the title. As opposed to “Right-Wing Extremism: the Current Threat,” which is the title of the recently-released report.
I’m now going to go look up the word “irenic,” but I feel fairly confident without even looking that it expresses my mindset in 2001.
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 16, 2009 @ 11:03 am
Joe,
First, the 2001 report is a DOE report, not DOJ. Its concern is defensive in nature; i.e., safeguarding government sites. It also makes a point of contrasting left- and right-wing extremists. It’s well defined. It lists specific groups and actions. The recent document isn’t so well defined and it relies on the SPLC, an advocacy group with its own agenda and issues.
Now, you have another document released this January from that relates to cyberterrorism. Again, this document is much better defined and specific.
Please stop projecting onto me, and please stop with the false equivalencies. This narrative that political abuses exist in perfect symmetry on both sides of the spectrum doesn’t hold up to factual scrutiny.
The Clinton Administration had a perfectly horrid record on civil liberties. Their reaction to the Oklahoma City bombing was termed one of the biggest setbacks for citizen rights by the ACLU itself. The narrative has some historical validity.
The DHS should have been more careful with its wording. You don’t have to give up your support of Obama to acknowledge that.
Comment by Barry —
April 16, 2009 @ 11:04 am
Another:
“Well, I have a hard time caring about Bush people going through a little government surveillance, especially after what Nixon did to Lennon and other leftists.â€
Comment by dhex —
“that’s why i support capital punishment against italians. look what those fuckers did to jesus! ”
The obvious difference, dhex, is that one will find a far lower percentage of italians supporting the killing of Jesus, than of right-wingers who still really like Nixon, and still support what he did.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Derek,
Before getting into the merits of either report, I just want to get some closure on the slur you threw at me: If the Bush DHS had used the label “left-wing†I don’t think you’d be so irenic, Joe.
One of us allowed a narrative about partisanship to interfere with his understanding, and one of us did not. Yes, I’m being persnickity about this. Can you guess why?
Knock that shit off. If you disagree with a point I make, argue the point.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 11:36 am
So, the Bush administration didn’t make things worse?
One can’t distinguish between the state of civil liberties in this country pre- and post-Bush for any reason other than partisanship?
What nonsense. George Bush made things much worse than Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama is making them better. If you can’t see that, you’re lost.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Remember all the times the Bush administration did this?
Found illegal snooping was being carried out on Americans, curtailed the program, and informed Congress, without there having been any press coverage of the abuses?
You know, just like when the NYT broke the original story about illegal wiretaps?
No, I’m not going to pretend these two administrations are equivalent, because they are clearly not equivalent.
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 16, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
So, the Bush administration didn’t make things worse?
Yes, it did, in the same way 2 is greater than 1. One built upon the other. And I objected to it at the time, telling conservatives they’d never stand for this stuff under a Clinton Administration.
And I standby what I said. I don’t see it as a slur, really. If Bush’s DHS had issued this kind of report targeting the left, you’d have been upset, and rightly so. Especially if it was timed with a series of antiwar protests, as this one synched up with the admittedly silly tea party protests.
Comment by dhex —
April 16, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
“The obvious difference, dhex, is that one will find a far lower percentage of italians supporting the killing of Jesus, than of right-wingers who still really like Nixon, and still support what he did.”
my ha-ha isn’t who supported what, but the comparison itself. “i’m ok with some uncomfortable government pressure on my political enemies because the republican president 30 years ago was doing the same thing” is, to be charitable, weird.
hence “sports bar diplomacy”, though one could argue since i’m saying “anyone who cheers on government surveillance for a broad swath of people is a horrible fuckface” is merely my cheering for cricket while everyone else is playing baseball. such is life.
a better comparison would be the largely true assumption that people who were squicked over this weren’t squicked over reports about surveillance of the anti-war movement or environmentalist groups, and vice versa. it’s just really shitty and sad.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
There was no DHS in 2001.
I’m a hypocrite, because there was no DHS in 2001, and the report came from a different branch of the federal government. What horseshit.
Let’s pretend there sill was no DHS, and the report “Right-Wing Extremism: the Current Threat†had been issued by the DoE a few days ago. Glenn Beck and Peter King probably would have ignored the whole thing, right?
Right, I’m the hypocrite here.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE OF A WIDE SWATH OF PEOPLE. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH.
It is a figment of the imagination of the people who want to see that Kenyan guy’s birth certificate, being whipped up cynically by people seeking to exploit their ignorance and fear for political purposes.
Unfortunately, an uncomfortably large number of those ignorant, fearful people are heavily armed, and think that it’s their job to take up arms against scary federal oppressors. How about we don’t whip them up into a frenzy over nothing, hmm?
Comment by dhex —
April 16, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
footnote from page 2 of document.
Comment by matthew hogan —
April 16, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
As of 2005 or so, when we knew that they had illegally spied on, for example, the American Friends Service Committee, I would have been bothered by such language, because that particular administration had demonstrated its eagerness to engage in illegal surveillance, threaten those who expose it, and treat the political opposition as being in league with terrorists.
As opposed to the current administration, which roots out Bush-era abuses, end them, and informs Congress of the whole thing. See today’s news.
Government works, if only we get the right people in there!
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 16, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
I’m a hypocrite, because there was no DHS in 2001, and the report came from a different branch of the federal government.
That report came from the Department of ENERGY. It’s not in the same league with DHS. If it was DOJ, you’d have a prima facie case, although the document itself is much different, as I’ve pointed out.
Let’s pretend there sill was no DHS,
Why pretend? If the Obama administration wants to win serious civil libertarian plaudits, let it end the DHS altogether. Then it can claim to be undoing the Bush Legacy and shrinking government.
(That’s an unfair O/T sidebar, but still. If Obama does that, I may well vote for him again.)
…and the report “Right-Wing Extremism: the Current Threat†had been issued by the DoE a few days ago. Glenn Beck and Peter King probably would have ignored the whole thing, right?
They probably would have reacted in the same manner. You’re right, but then they would have been wrong if the substance of you DoE report was analogous to the real one. In this case they happen to be somewhat right.
THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE OF A WIDE SWATH OF PEOPLE. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH.
That’s probably true, joe, but it does lay the groundwork to start such surveillance and pressure. People want to make this point BEFORE such a program gets going, not afterwords. Prevention is better than treatment.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
Government works, if only we get the right people in there!
I like the way that this statement must be false, and silly, because Matthew Hogan wants it to be, even though “the right people in there” just released the torture memos, ended the use of torture, and, oh yeah, aren’t actually committing the rights violations the Bush administration was committing.
Matthew Hogan: so incredibly committed to judging the government by its actions instead of personalities that he…uh…can’t be bothered to actually find out about the government’s actions before judging them based on their personalities.
Pathetic. You’d rather pretend that it doesn’t matter whether or not we have a government run by people who care about constitutional rights than acknowledge that some people care about constitutional rights and some don’t.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
You move those goal posts, Derek! You move them good!
Government spying on people vs. not? Who cares! What REALLY matters is that the cabinet hasn’t been reorganized.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
No, it does not. There is nothing about the identification of domestic terrorist threats that “lays the groundwork” for they types of inappropriate government surveillance and pressure that characterized the last eight years. It is entirely possible for local and federal police to be aware of what kind of a threat exists without moving into domestic spying.
It was a purposeful, deliberate decision that Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Gonzales made to conduct illegal surveillance operations. You know why they did that? Because they’re THE WRONG SORT OF PEOPLE.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
The right sort of people just released the torture memos that only a naive partisan would ever think they’d release.
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Nobody moved goalposts, joe. I noted the DHS issue was a sidebar, so calm down.
At any rate, I don’t see why I should be so impressed by an Administration releasing potentially embarrassing memos from their political enemies. Is it good that they did it? Sure, but it’s not the fall of the Berlin Wall, either.
It is entirely possible for local and federal police to be aware of what kind of a threat exists without moving into domestic spying.
Sure, that’s possible, but the groundwork for abuse exists alongside it. That’s why I’m hitting on the general nature of the descriptions.
Look, I know this annoys you, but what you’re saying really is what Republican partisans were telling me over the previous eight years: “Don’t worry, we can trust the people now in power.”
Okay, so I’ll tell you what I told them: Fine, let me grant your point for moment. Obama is a perfect angel. So what happens when he and his people retire or are forced out through an election? The structure’s still there. That’s why, in the end, the whole domestic national security apparatus set up by both the Bush and the Clinton Administrations needs to be scaled back.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
That’s amusing to read, because when you didn’t think he would release them, you went on endlessly about the huge implications of this decision. Now, as I predicted, it just doesn’t matter much.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I just wrote. My comments are about judging from evidence instead of prejudice and emotion. It has nothing to do with trust. It’s clearly what your brain defaults to when you can’t understand an argument, so I’m done trying.
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 17, 2009 @ 9:50 am
That’s amusing to read, because when you didn’t think he would release them, you went on endlessly about the huge implications of this decision.
Joe, I don’t remember commenting on the memos themselves. Ever. Correct me if I’m wrong. All I can find on Google is this page.
I’m skeptical of Obama changing the larger interventionist foreign policy, and I’ve been largely justified in that belief. He’s increasing our involvement in South Asia, and we’re still going to be keeping a large contingent in the Middle East.
But let give the man credit, too. More important than these memos is his shutting down black sites and circumscribing (though not eliminating) rendition. These are good moves and worth his election.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I just wrote.
Yes, it does, because you’re insisting that the personalities matter. That’s true to a degree, but the structures are more important if they survive the personality.
Comment by jac —
April 17, 2009 @ 11:54 am
So your contention is that this all occurred under the Bush administration? Where the hell were you during the Clinton era? No issues with loss of constitutional rights during that era.
Nice to see relativism is alive and well here.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
April 17, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Huh! I’d never come across that word before; neat.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
April 17, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
I think that’s unreasonably optimistic, joe. Consider the article you link above:
But two years later, “The Justice Department has reined in electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency after finding the agency had improperly accessed American phone calls and e-mails.”
Let’s assume you’re completely right and Obama’s administration is doing its absolute best to change a very large, recalcitrant system that’s been doing awful things for the last eight years. You’ve repeatedly pointed out that these things don’t happen overnight and seemed frustrated by people who seem to think they should already be done.
Aren’t you jumping the gun to say that ending broad-based surveillance is already done, just a couple of months into the Obama term?
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 17, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
Back to the DHS report. Apparently officials within the DHS objected to the language, and Napolitano has admitted her own troubles with it. Hopefully, these concerns are sincere.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 18, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
Yes, it does, because you’re insisting that the personalities matter.
Personalities do indeed matter, but that’s not what you wrote. What you wrote about was “trust.” I haven’t made any arguments about anyone deserving trust, but about different personalities demonstrating different methods of governing.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 18, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
I think that’s unreasonably optimistic, joe.
It could have been phrased better. What I meant is that there has been zip zero zilch nada evidence of any widespread surveillance of conservatives as suggested by the people getting hysterical about this report.