photos by Lara Shipley
Tags: Privacy and Surveillance
// Feb 13, 2008 at 12:41 am
Yea, I wonder about the coward observation.
Are the Democrats voting for this because they are scared the Republicans are going to accuse them of being pr-terrorist?
Or are they voting for this bill because they think its the right thing to do?
I can’t decide which option disturbs me more. The even grimmer aspect of this is that they are probably both true.
// Feb 13, 2008 at 9:39 am
Is the cowards thing because they passed it at all, or because they passed it on a day on which they knew media attention would be focused elsewhere? I’m not really too sure how scheduling in the Congress works.
// Feb 13, 2008 at 10:22 am
I think it’s only accurate to call them cowards if they share your values and priorities (in this area), but violated them for less-important safety.
Where’s the evidence for this?
It seems to me that most congressmen have consistently shown that they value the security of their offices over the national interest.
There are a lot of good epithets to use to describe them, but I’m not sure “cowards” is an accurate one.
// Feb 13, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I agree on the cowards assessment – afraid of looking weak, afraid of losing office, afraid of being blamed.
I cannot wait until President Bush leaves office so that this sense of “you’re either with us or against us” that prevails in discussions over surveillance laws, “enemy combatant” treatment, etc. dies. Hopefully, the next president will allow us to debate these ideas without fear of being accused of being weak, “the clock is ticking,” etc.
Today, I’m sad to say that privacy has no effective advocate. The irony is that by bowing down to President Bush’s wishes out of fear of appearing weak, the Democrats actually ARE weak.
Will a larger majority in both houses after Nov. ’08 make a difference? Sadly, I don’t think it will, even if the Dem’s have super-majorities.
© 2006–2007 Julian Sanchez — blog content
— photos by Lara Shipley — Sitemap — Cutline by Chris Pearson