3 ms·

Interesting note -- the WSJ editorial report (a Fox show I doubt most HN folk regularly catch) had a segment on the Swartz case. One editor (Joseph Rago) came o

Interesting note -- the WSJ editorial report (a Fox show I doubt most HN folk regularly catch) had a segment on the Swartz case. One editor (Joseph Rago) came out strongly in his favor, speaking out against Ortiz and prosecutorial overreach. I think it was Sun Tzu who said, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's important to realize there is still a strong strain of libertarian thought on the right, that is supportive of civil liberties and is concerned about the ever-increasing power and overreach of the government.

philwelch 14y ago
I think that aside from a few very specific issues, no one supports civil liberties per se. They support civil liberties when their side doesn't have the presidency and oppose them when their side does have it. The real issue is executive powers, and you're obviously going to support more executive powers when your side controls the executive branch while opposing it when the other side would benefit from them. This is why the exceptions tend to be cases where restraining civil liberties doesn't really help the President do as he pleases. For instance, the American left supports regulating and prohibiting gun ownership even under a Democratic president, while the right opposes it even under a Republican president. The same is true, in reverse, for abortion or gay marriage, with both sides split on marijuana. But when it comes to drones, wiretapping, Guantanamo, or federal law enforcement and prosecution, it's not a question of principle anymore but a question of empowering or disempowering the President and his Attorney General. Hence, conservatives will be angry at Janet Reno, but will stay mum about Ashcroft and Gonzales for eight years, or even be supportive, before coming out against Holder. Meanwhile, the actual civil libertarians haven't liked a single one of them!
- danbmil99 14y ago
  I agree that each side is apparently blind to the civil liberties abuses of their own proponents. If a president named Bush were doing what Obama is doing wrt drones, wiretapping, Justice dept overreach, deportations, and zealous prosecution of Marijuana laws (even when states have clearly taken a different path), I can only guess how many HuffPo articles a week would be foaming at the mouth. What the Left fails to seem to realize is while they may love Obama to death, the Presidency is not any one person, it is an office. Obama's extension of executive powers is inherited by the next Republican president just like Bush and Cheney's were inherited by Obama. This is probably another downside of the hyper-partisan tone of today's politics. Obama supporters stay quiet about his abuses for fear of weakening him in his zero-sum fight with the Tea Party. But this ends-justifies-means selective outrage is not a principled stance, and in the end the next Romney type who gets in there will reap the benefit of our collective silence.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    It's already happened--Clinton, not Bush, was the originator of "extraordinary rendition".

philwelch 14y ago

I think that aside from a few very specific issues, no one supports civil liberties per se. They support civil liberties when their side doesn't have the presidency and oppose them when their side does have it. The real issue is executive powers, and you're obviously going to support more executive powers when your side controls the executive branch while opposing it when the other side would benefit from them. This is why the exceptions tend to be cases where restraining civil liberties doesn't really help the President do as he pleases. For instance, the American left supports regulating and prohibiting gun ownership even under a Democratic president, while the right opposes it even under a Republican president. The same is true, in reverse, for abortion or gay marriage, with both sides split on marijuana. But when it comes to drones, wiretapping, Guantanamo, or federal law enforcement and prosecution, it's not a question of principle anymore but a question of empowering or disempowering the President and his Attorney General. Hence, conservatives will be angry at Janet Reno, but will stay mum about Ashcroft and Gonzales for eight years, or even be supportive, before coming out against Holder. Meanwhile, the actual civil libertarians haven't liked a single one of them!

danbmil99 14y ago
I agree that each side is apparently blind to the civil liberties abuses of their own proponents. If a president named Bush were doing what Obama is doing wrt drones, wiretapping, Justice dept overreach, deportations, and zealous prosecution of Marijuana laws (even when states have clearly taken a different path), I can only guess how many HuffPo articles a week would be foaming at the mouth. What the Left fails to seem to realize is while they may love Obama to death, the Presidency is not any one person, it is an office. Obama's extension of executive powers is inherited by the next Republican president just like Bush and Cheney's were inherited by Obama. This is probably another downside of the hyper-partisan tone of today's politics. Obama supporters stay quiet about his abuses for fear of weakening him in his zero-sum fight with the Tea Party. But this ends-justifies-means selective outrage is not a principled stance, and in the end the next Romney type who gets in there will reap the benefit of our collective silence.
- philwelch 14y ago
  It's already happened--Clinton, not Bush, was the originator of "extraordinary rendition".