From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
Much has been made overthe past few years about profiling. Profiling is the practice of looking for certain "types" of people and holding them under greater scrutiny. And while the practice of singling out people based on their race, religion, gender or whatever will always be a "hot button" debate issue, republican lawmakers are lobbying Speaker Nanci Pelosi for something more extreme.

The Washington Times reported that republican lawmakers are trying to get Pelosi to protect legislation that frees "John Does" from being sued if it turns out their intentions were less than noble or downright malicious.

The legislation was slipped into a bill last month. Majority leader Steny Hoyer has eluded that he might take out or block the provision from the final bill. The changes would be made in conference comittee. Something the republican majority did to democrats on a regular basis.

That doesn't make the potential move right, however. The Democrats did pledge to not be as low-down as the GOP was when they held the majority. And I certainly gave them some leeway with their "1st 100 days" or whatever so they could set their agenda and make some statements. But at this point, it's time to work for the American people, not the democratic party.

But that aslo doesn't mean that the democrats should allow the legislation to be "slipped" into another broader bill in silence. These are our rights after all. Our civil liberties, that are supposed to be the bedrock of our democracy.

This legislation deserves full debate and disclosure. The merits of anonymity and it's weight on whistle blowing need to be openly weighed against the individual's right not to be harassed or detained for no good reason. And if there is no good reason, the victim's rights to "face his accuser" as the Constitution dictates as well as his protection from false and malicious accusations need to be weighed as well against other factors that play in.

Both parties are to be scolded for trying to either make this bill law or squash it behind closed doors instead of before the American people.

The American people demanded a change in direction in November. Part of that was a change in Iraq and our overall approach to the threats around the world. Another demand was a change from the old school days of backroom deals and corruption and greater transparency in our government. And that is not exclusive to the executive branch.

Debates don't get much more important than ones on our civil liberties. To me, and many others, they are a cornerstone to our society. They are a major component of what we sell around the world as what is so great about America. Our freedoms, our rights, our liberties. The rights of free speech, religion and assembly. The rights that allow us to defend ourselves, especially against an unjust and oppresive government. The rights protecting our homes from being raided in the middle of the night by gestapo like soldiers with no cause or warrant. The rights of innocence until guilt is proven. The right to have our "day in court" before an unbiased judge or jury of our peers.

And the right not to be harassed or detained for no good reason whatsoever. And the right to seek justice if we are wronged.

And if you don't think it can happen to you, think again. Think about how a malicious and unscrupulous ex, co-worker, competitor or foe of any kind could use the cloak of anonymity to crush their opposition, or at least ruin their day, week or month.

But on the other hand, there is an argument to be made for the protection of truly good people who are observing truly suspicious behavior and might only be brave enough to speak up to protect the rest of us with that cloak of anonymity and protection from intimidation or retaliation.

Of course, it would be nice if everyone was brave and corageous enough to not need anything to hide behind in order to speak up. But in this very real world, that isn't the case.

Like I said, it is a debate we need to have. And not the old conservative vs. liberal, "their position proves they are really bad, un-patriotic people" debate. A real one that weighs our liberty and our security. Principles vs. pragmatism. Keeping in mind that on the whole, we all want to be as free and safe as we can be and despite what the pundits want, we are all really on the same side here and want the best for our families, communities and country.

But the last thing we should alow our representatives to do is decide this in a closed room, being treated as "political poker chips" and on an equal footing with less vital proposals and bills. And to be negotiated on as if they were.




Comments
on May 02, 2007
The American people demanded a change in direction in November. Part of that was a change in Iraq and our overall approach to the threats around the world. Another demand was a change from the old school days of backroom deals and corruption and greater transparency in our government. And that is not exclusive to the executive branch.

Nothing personal, Sean, but this statement is a highly subjective interpretation of the aggregate effect of hundreds of individual elections, each of which was decided on a long list of issues, only some of which had anything to do with Iraq, our "overall approach to threats around the world," corruption or transparency. To translate any set of election results, particularly a set which resulted in a party achieving such a narrow majority, into "demands" for anything is an exercise in projection (in the psychiatric sense) at best. It's a stretch to say the "American people demanded" any particular thing, not that that keeps those whose agenda happens to be advanced by such a notion from trumpeting such claims.

Aside from that, I agree with the thrust of your article concerning the need for open debate of issues which affect our individual rights and freedoms.
on May 02, 2007
Nothing personal, Sean, but this statement is a highly subjective interpretation of the aggregate effect of hundreds of individual elections, each of which was decided on a long list of issues,


it is, they were but there was a general "theme" in the election overall. would you say the same about 94? or 2002? not to mention most presidential contests, where the "coat-tails can sometimes be quite long.

on May 02, 2007
I don't believe the media or anyone on the left took Bush's re-election to mean that the American people "demanded" anything. There were all kinds of weaselly "analyses" flying around about how the election didn't really mean much because it was so narrowly decided, the "Two Americas" horsepucky, "if the American people had only been this or that," yada yada.

The Senate goes Democrat by one seat and suddenly "the American people demand a change in direction," but only on the pet issues of the left, and only in their direction. Drivel... sorry, just drivel. Both sides make similar silly claims when they "win" but I don't buy them. The difference is the mainstream media remain sceptical and discount the significance when one side "wins" yet unquestioningly accept, even endorse & propagandize, the "demand for change" when the other side sneaks a toe over the goal line. I'll leave it to you to guess which side is which.
on May 03, 2007
I don't believe the media or anyone on the left took Bush's re-election to mean that the American people "demanded" anything.


i'm not really lookin to have a terminology debate. you can call it whatever ya want daiwa.

The Senate goes Democrat by one seat and suddenly "the American people demand a change in direction," but only on the pet issues of the left, and only in their direction.


lol...funny, just last july the democrats taking the senate was "impossible" and a "pipe dream." now, after they actually pulled off what everyone said couldn't be done, it's minimalized.

yes, various issues played various roles in individual elections. duh... but, there was a few over riding themes that voters were nationally aware of and either being driven to or away from the polls on.

1 was iraq. another was corruption / transparency. and there were a few others that played big roles like stem cells and economic issues.

"meta-issues" play a role in every election. the winner plays em up, and the loser plays em down, usually as well.

take care daiwa:)
on May 03, 2007
i'm not really lookin to have a terminology debate. you can call it whatever ya want daiwa.

I didn't choose the terminology - you did. Kind of a lame dodge on your part.

lol...funny, just last july the democrats taking the senate was "impossible" and a "pipe dream." now, after they actually pulled off what everyone said couldn't be done, it's minimalized.

I suppose Bush's election & re-election weren't "minimalized"? More like "assumed to be illegitimate", as I recall.

Like I said, I agree with the main point of your article.   
on May 03, 2007
I didn't choose the terminology - you did. Kind of a lame dodge on your part.


i'm not dodging. i'm fine withthe treminology i used. you're the one who questioned it.

I suppose Bush's election & re-election weren't "minimalized"? More like "assumed to be illegitimate", as I recall.


that's what i said in my response...the winners play it up, the loser plays it down...that's politics. and like it often is with the "fact" part of that argument, both sides have the proverbial facts on their side at various points.

and i think we agree on a lot here daiwa. i think the problem is that you see me as not being fair to the GOP by bringin up dem. reaction to 00 and 04.

and i do believe that regardless of the side of the political fence one chooses to sit on, that the issues of corruption and transparancy were at the forefront nationally and in many local races in 2006.

and as you might note, i am criticizing both parties for their attempts to control everything and avoid transparancy and properly debating this very important civil liberty. they are using this as a political poker chip in the back room. that tells me that they do not take what the american people said about how they felt about their govt. seriously. that dissapoints me. and it's not a partisan thing.

it might dissapoint me more that more aren't outraged than my dissapointment with congress (both sides). i understand that most don't follow politics and govt. like i do, but out of the ones who do take an interest, most of them are so caught up in either the war funding bill, and who can be pinned with "treason" in some way, or the election and worrying about "their guy (or gal)" getting to be president well over a year from now. meanwhile, this erosion of our rights is potentially taking place right now.

electons are important, for sure. but after the election, it's time to govern, at least for a little while, before ya get all hepped up about the next one. this trend of longer and longer election seasons is getting to be a big problem imho. just like when retailers got out of hand with xmas marketing. except, in this case, unlike xmas, the stakes are much higher.

we are getting to a "no steak and all sizzle" point in politics. longer and longer election cycles are evidence of that, in my view.



on May 03, 2007
i'm not dodging. i'm fine withthe treminology i used. you're the one who questioned it.

You're fine with it, just not defending it.   

electons are important, for sure. but after the election, it's time to govern, at least for a little while, before ya get all hepped up about the next one. this trend of longer and longer election seasons is getting to be a big problem imho. just like when retailers got out of hand with xmas marketing. except, in this case, unlike xmas, the stakes are much higher.


I'm with you there. And I think you give the GOP a fair enough shake, I just think calling the last mid-term elections a "mandate" or "demand" for anything, absent acceptance of a similar conclusion from the last 3 national elections is disingenuous. The results of those elections were taken as reason to organize more vigorous opposition, not reason to acquiesce in the "demands" of the American people as reflected in the results. There is an assumption out there that we should suddenly acquiesce now that the "right" side has regained control, tenuous as it may be, that the now-opposition should now quit opposing. You may protest your evenhandedness, and I may be wrong, but your writing suggests that's what you believe, too.