"'On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving.
When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years.
I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: 'Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.' I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. 'That'll do it,' the man said. '"
April 9, 2007
More of Bush's America?
I keep expecting to run out of outrage--that Bush's continued bungling will somehow start to hit dead nerves. But then I read stories like this and the outrage returns. Professor Walter F. Murphy, noted scholar and decorated veteran found himself on the Terrorist Watch list. Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Because you're either with us or against us. Hail Caesar.
Sounds like the FBI under J E Hoover. From what I have read, history has vindicated some of Hoover's paranoia, in that the USSR had infiltrated some of the groups he was watching. I have not seen a credible evidence that terrorist groups have been ifiltrating protestor groups.
I have only flown 3 or 4 times since 9-11 and didn't find it to be very pleasant. The gov't could take some effective steps to improve security, but they would rather just make things difficult for everyone.
I am not familiar with the instances of Soviet infiltration you cite, but Hoover's FBI also infiltrated the Black Panthers, AIM, SDS, etc, and frequently acted as provocateurs in doing so. In these cases, the FBI was not acting as law enforcement but as defenders of the status quo.
My sense of the post 9/11 airport security proceudres is that they are essentially political theater intended to make us feel safe instead of actually keeping us safe.
Yeah, i am not sure about vindicating Hoover either. We might not want to forget them wiretapping MLK, jr. either.
But it amazes me to this day that disagreeing with this administration can be so easily construed as treason. I am just tired of that--as a liberal I have to affirm my patriotism or loyalty. If I were a conservative, there would be no need. Conservative politicians aligned themselves with militas who wanted to overthrow the government, yet they were never called traitors or put on a watch list.
I should have said partially vindicated Hoover. His practices, in many cases, were deplorable. I don't remember the name of the book, but there were several accounts by a KGB defectors on extensive efforts to infiltrate labor unions, the entertainment industry, and the various socialist parties in the US. There were more, but tthose are the only I can recall off the top of my head.
ubub, I think you are correct in your assessment of most of the security procedures.
What conservative politicians aligned themselves with militia groups? What groups? I don't belong to one, but I do know a fair amount about them.
I remember several during the 1990s like Steve Stockman and Helen Chenoweth (from Idaho) who were pretty supportive of militias. Perhaps being from Colorado, I am also remembering a state representative who was part of that "patriot" movement. I also remember that the anti-government rhetoric of the militias was often not that different from the Republican attack on government. The NRA referred to the ATF officers as "jack booted thugs" even forcing a response from GHWB. That has continued in a different vein with prominent politicians like John Ashcroft cozying up to White Supremacists groups. None of them, in my memory, were ever labeled traitors to their country.
I am not familiar with either of those people, so I'll have to see what I can dig up. The militia movement was relatively popular in Michigan in the early 1990's. Like many movements, it encompassed a bread spectrum of beliefs and ideologies. There were survivalists, gun-nuts, libertarians, weekend warriors, kooks, and people that liked the outdoors. There were also some anti-gov't folks and some white separatists and white supremicists, but from what I heard, these people were often kicked out and went on to form their own groups.
Of course, all of this changed following the Oklahoma City bombing. Tim McVeigh's sympathy towards militias associated his act with those groups in the minds of many and most started to call them domestic terrorists. The gov't infiltrated many of these groups and they have been doomed to wacko-fringe status. I seriously doubt any politician that wants to win will associate thmseves with any militia group. I don't know anyone that belongs to one today.
Wayne LaPierre referred to the actions of the BATF and the Justice Department in regards to Ruby Ridge and Waco when he made his infamous JBT statements. He quickly apologized, but the damage had been done. I think it has been taken out of context and attributed to the NRA hating the government. Personally, I think the actions of those involved at Ruby Ridge and Waco are deplorable and should hold up as examples of what a gov't should not do to their citizens, but Wayne probably could have chosen a different way of making his point. These people have also been critical of the BATF:
Send in the Waco Killers
BATFE-Exposing the Threat
I can't say that I entirely agree with either of them, but they make some interesting points. I also agree that painting someone a traitor because they are a liberal is intellectually lazy.
Yeah, not sure I see Ruby Ridge and Waco as the examples that you do. Let me reiterate the irony of (not you) but conservatives who complained about the power of the state when it was militia members in compounds, but are silent when it is the Patriot Act, torture, and enemy combatants.
The guy at Ruby Ridge was issued a legal warrant which he refused to honor and things got out of hand. Waco was a wackjob preacher storing weapons and incarcerating kids. Both were given ample opportunty to work it out. I am not celebrating bloodshed in either case, but neither is this a clear cut case of government heavy handedness.
BTW, I honestly don't remember LaPierre recanting anything. I remember GHWB revoking his membership in the NRA, but I don't recall LaPierre recanting a single damn thing. Ever.
You'd be surprised at the number of conservatives that are concerned about the policies you mentioned, but of the ones that aren't, I agree that they are hypocrites.
As for Waco and Ruby Ridge, I thought both of them were off (Koresh, moreso), but the gov't reaction was grossly out of proportion to the offense. Weaver was accused of having a shotgun that was a half an inch under the legal limit and the BATF had a search warrant for Koresh to see if he had machine guns.
In Weaver's case, the only thing he was eventually convicted of was failing to appear in court. Koresh's machine guns were never found. During the aftermath, a great deal of evidence was destroyed or lost by the FBI. Additionally, the FBI lied during several hearings and the federal prosecutor for this case pled guilty to charges of obstructing the investigation.
I think both of these examples are clear cut cases of what not to do. Sorry to take this off topic. I wasn't trying to steer the topic away from Bush.
No, I think I took it off topic, so no worries there.
I am not defending the FBI or ATF in either case, but the "patriot" cause around both annoys me. Sure there are many instances where cops or federal agents pursue a case they should not. But in these cases, a judge somewhere approved an arrest warrant or search warrant. If those were obtained poorly, there is a place to resist, and it is called the court room (as you know better than the rest of us).
African Americans talk about being arrested or pulled over for DWB (Driving While Black) and no one likes that this is a reality in America. We support efforts to clean up police departments and push for the end of racist cops and racist policies. But I don't see anywhere mainstream widespread support for some African American who is pulled over, who then resists arrest.
The patriot movement, and the entire conservative wing of the Republican party bought into the hatred of government espoused by these "Patriots." And we are living with the results--years of Republicans badmouthing government has given us people like Bush and his cronies who continue to do this at the same time that they build up certain government programs and use it to generate profit for others. I played softball with a kid a few years ago, who told me that he was working as an accountant for the state, which he hated, he said, because he hated government and as an accountant he got to see all the ways that government wasted money. The first example he gave was for money for Tulsa Race Riot survivors.
Its early and I am already jaded. We can go back to Bush. I hope like hell that you are right that conservatives are very upset about this. I don't hear many--or at least don't hear it from those still in the fold. That 30 percent that continues to support the president scares the crap out of me. What would it take to budge? Nuclear war? Bush in a sex scandal?
Sigh.
I am in no way advocating violent overthrow or shooting gov't agents and support resoving these issues in court. If you are interested in the Waco siege, I would suggest the documentary, Waco: The Rules of Engagement. IIRC, it was nominated for an Acedemy award. Unlike some of the other videos, it was professionally done and does a good job in terms of sources.
It should also be noted that the Branch Davidians that were charged with the killings of the BATF agents were acquited by a jury under self-defense. In most states (possibly all) you may not use force to resist a lawful arrest. For the jury to acquit, they must have believed that the BATF was not acting lawfully in the way they conducted the raid.
There was also evidence that the BATF wanted a confrontation. In one of the trials, BATF Special Agent Roland Ballesteros, the first to arrive at the front door, took the stand for six hours. Ballesteros acknowledged that BATF planners had never had a plan for peacefully serving the search and arrest warrants. He said no agent had been designated to announce the purpose of the raid. "Basically, we all announced. We practiced knocking, announcing, and then going through the front door." Asked if he ever rehearsed a peacefully entry, he answered, "No, we did not." Ballesteros was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun, 9mm pistol, and a 38 caliber handgun. He and two other agents were also armed with a battering ram. The Davidians were able to show that the BATF never announced who they were or that they were serving a warrant.
I hope I have not given the impression that I hate the gov't, because I don't. I have a great deal of skepticims when it comes to the gov't and, in many areas, I don't trust gov't officials to always act properly and tell the truth. History seems to prove this. I have worked for the gov't in the past, and would do so again. My father just retired from gov't service. I know there are good people in the gov't.
I certainly can't claim to speak for all conservative, but the sense I get from some of the boards I post at is that there were many that voted for him just because they hated Kerry more, not because they liked him. There are plenty of Bush apologists and people that agree with oonly a few of things he has done, but I would guess that some of the president's support is from people that don't really follow the news.
Yeah, I don't want to relitigate the Waco disaster. I think we can all agree it didn't have to occur. I simply find the Branch Davidians and Randy Weaver odd people to lionize and fundraise about. Like I noted, we have a history of our police and federal agents playing havoc with minority rights--often with the tacit approvale of many who turned Waco into a monument or Randy Weaver into an American martyr. The FBI shooting up Pine Ridge comes to mind.
As for conservatives and Bush, perhaps I am in a bad mood today, but I am least sympathetic to the "hated Kerry more" argument. Given torture, ill-conceived war, environmental policy written by Exxon, and the Patriot Act, it is hard for me to accept that somehow Kerry could be worse. Sure, they hated him, but in large part because they bought Karl Rove's Swiftboating/flipflopping charges, and allowed a decorated veteran to be turned into a draft-dodging hippy, and a drunk womanizing spoiled rich kid who didn't even fulfill his guard duty into a "war hero president."
I know that not all conservatives hate government, but the REpublican party has been run by people who do. They have turned government into the enemy and taxes into oppression and slavery--much of what the "Patriot" movement espoused. And as I noted, we are living with that now.
The reference to Pine Ridge serves as a good reminder that this is nothing new. To cite just two examples, where was the broad concern about federal or local law enforcement practices when the feds had APCs on Pine Ridge or when the Philly police bombed MOVE's house, killing all but one person? It seems like there is a general outcry against abuse of authority only once it starts happening to white people.
I am certainly not trying to paint Weaver or Koresh as sympathetic martyrs, but rather to look at the practices of federal law enforcement in these circumstances. I also should have mentioned the assault on the MOVE house, which is also an excellent example. I should also note that it is frequently cited by conservatives when arguing about abusive police practices.
As for the hate Kerry more argument, what is wrong with that? I didn't like him, but I was basing it on his voting record and his policy positions. I made up my mind long before the debate on what they were doing during the Vietnam War.
I disagree that there was a "general outcry" against Ruby Ridge and Waco. On the contrary, the gov't did a great job sweeping those incidents under the rug and demonizing the people that were killed. If you ask most people about those incidents, they will tell you that "they had it coming" or someting along that line. There were not any significant changes, as paramilitary style police raids have been on the rise since then. I would say that they do handle high profile situations better (Montana Freeman).
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on Waco. Perhaps it is a regional difference, but I still contend that the entire Republican mantra from the early 90s till 2000 reflected that anti-government, taxes are bad mentality. The anti-government rhetoric eased a bit once the guy in charge was Republican. But remember, Grover Norquist famously said that he didn't want to kill government, but reduce it to the size where it could be drowned in a bathtub. I guess Katrina must have been his idea of a perfect use of government.
As for Kerry, you are welcome to hate him all you want. What I said was that that was the least convincing argument to me. Again, given what Bush had produced in his first 4 years, voting for him still seems incomprehensible. An already failed war (at that time) torture allegations, clearly not enough troops on the ground (despite his claims) and the continued politicization of every level of policy. I think the last two years has vindicated that view. Hard for me to believe that Kerry could have been anything worse.
We probably have to agree to disagree on this too.
I suppose. I don't enjoy paying taxes, but I accept that they are needed to pay for certain mechanisms of gov't. What is needed, and what is pork are matters for healthy debate.
Deprivation of rights should be a concern for everyone. Unfortunately, I think people are content to give up rights in the name of security, political correctness and various wars (war on crime, war on drugs, etc.).
As for Kerry, I never said that I hated him. I don't. I prefer that he not be in power. As for what would have happened if he were the president, we can only guess.
In terms of anti-gov't rhetoric, are you contending that it is somehow bad to be critical of the gov't? What is acceptable and what isn't?
Steve, I was not singling you out about conservatism, but I don't think I am off base when I say that conservatives have, along with Grover Norquist, demonizes taxes AND government.
Of course, I don't oppose criticizing our government. Good God, I have devoted an entire blog to mocking and criticizing this particular President. What I am suggesting is that conservatives have portrayed government as an "enemy" just as Bush sees the "press" as an enemy. That is ultimately destructive and I think irresponsible--and, I might reiterate, exactly what the Patriot movement was about. That has been my point.
I am all for an open discussion about taxes and public policy. I have no problem with that. But arguing that anyone who raises taxes is bad is, as you noted about questioning liberal loyalty--intellectually lazy. And dishonest. And that has been the conservative platform. I am more of the Canadian model--who don't love Government, but don't hate it either. Conservatives in this country have decided to badmouth government and any possible tax. As you note, some taxes are actually investment in something bigger. I can list many such examples. But under the GOP of the last 15 years, that list is empty and anyone who suggests otherwise is pilloried.
That needs to end. Maybe after Katrina and the disastrious Bush administration we will have a better dialogue about this. Katrina was that great example--where government and taxes are supposed to combine to help us help each other. Nothing against private donations or private charities, but Bush's undermining of our basic safety net is just one of the most irresponsible things he has done to us.
I don't feel singled out, which is why this is one of the only left-leaning places where I partcipate. My view towards gov't is mostly neutral and if I had to classify myself, I'd say I was pragmatic. Depending on the specific policy or program, I have supported things on both sides of the spectrum.
Katrina was one big clusterfu*#. It showed how inept FEMA was, but also highlighted corruption and mismanagement and the state and local level. I have some friends that live in Louisiana and I don't know how they put up with some of the bozos down there. I honestly don't know enough about disaster management to make any useful suggestions.
My experience in working in the public mental health system has made me think of many ways that it oculd be run better. I know we have had this conversation before, so I won't repeat them. My wife is a public school teacher and we have talked about what would help. I belive that policy and curriculum should be state and local. No child left behind is a bad law, along with many of the other federal guidlines. OTOH, I disagree with conservatives on the topic of school vouchers and don't support them.
I agree that portraying the gov't as the enemy is unproductive, but I also think it is healthy to be skeptical and questioning. Obviously, there are some seriously bad people in the gov't and some harmful policies, but there are also decent people and helpful policies. I think there are some bad elements of the BATF, but I would never expand that to say that the gov't is bad or that even all federal law enforcement is bad.
As for taxes, they are necessary, but I think we need to be careful what we spend money on. Michigan has had some serious budget problems in the last few years. The governor and the legislature have been able to cut spending in some good ways, but they have also acted irresponsibly. They voted themsleves a 41% raise, while asking state employees to work several days a year without pay and take pay cuts. There was a recent proposal to provide schools with Ipods to give to the kids, saying that there was educational material that could put on it. Another wants 100 million to imprve downtown Detroit. I question the benefits of doing any of these things.
Steve, I am glad you feel welcome to participate here. I think we are pretty reasonable people even if we lean to the left. :)
I think we agree about Katrina as well. I understand that local and state governments failed badly in the Gulf Coast, but I also know that FEMA was operating much better under Clinton than it did under Bush. Clinton approached it as a serious emergency management tool and hired people who were experts. Government can do things well, and especially so when people in government value good governing. During the last six years, I am afraid we have seen people appointed to jobs who either weren't qualified, or didn't think that job should exist (John Bolton qualifies for both, I believe). Hard to get good governance from that. And I hold the GOP leadership and Bush and Cheney responsible for the disastrous government that we have right now.
I agree about taxes and questioning government and think I said that. But just as all taxes are not necessarily good, neither are they all bad. Tax cuts often serve as tax "shifts" in that the money still has to come from somewhere, but it usually ends up in a fee or regressive tax somewhere. But at the base, we have to recognize that some of our taxes go to bring us all together, to build infrastructure and hospitals, to construct schools and parks and libraries, and to provide for basic services. When we invest them wisely, they are truly investments in the future. And until Republicans start recognizing that there are some good taxes, I am going to continue to be annoyed with them.
I agree that most of the posters here are reasonable. Even if I disagree completely, you still present a logical argument and are respectful.
About 8 or 9 years ago I attended the Michigan Counseling Assoc. annual conference. The keynote speaker was James Garbarino, a Harvard psychology professor. One of the tihngs he discussed really stood out and I remember it to this day. He claimed that many policy makers in the US fail to adequately research programs that they want to implement. They also fail to set up any kind of outcome measures to see if the program is actually working.
I don't have a problem with government spending our money on roads, schools, police, seniors, children, etc. I do have a problem with them wasting money on programs that do not work. A popular program in many schools here is D.A.R.E (Drug abuse resistance education, IIRC). The program has police going into elem. schools and doing an anti-drug routine. It is well funded and the departments that have DARE off. also get some other financial incentives. It has been around for well over a decade and has been well researched. Most of the studies seem to indicate that the program doesn't really do anything to lower drug use. Despite this, support for the program is strong and critics are met with scorn and asked if they want kids to be on drugs.
OTOH, Head Start has been shown to have many positive effects on later educational achievement and should be well funded. Frankly, we should take the money from DARE and expand Head Start.
Yeah, we are pretty reasonable--well except for Ubub's hatred of Starbucks. But that is for another posting.
We don't disagree about programs. But taxes are for more than just anti-drug programs. They pay the bills for a lot of things. The constant mantra of tax cutting misses that, and really is annoying. I have no problem with opposing funding for programs that don't work (abstinence only being one) but the generic "taxes are bad" is intellectually dishonest and lazy. Like I said, Katrina is a great example of what not to do--at all levels. But Bush inherited a functioning agency and turned it into a punch line.
I agree. I only used DARE as an example. Besides that, and abstinence programs, there are others that waste money. I am not opposed to raising taxes for things that are needed, but I am opposed to raising taxes without looking at what can or should be cut and don't even get me started on pork barrel spending.
Katrina was bad, but I am hoping it prompts some institutioanl changes. I am not suggesting that FEMA be disbanded, but it needs to move faster and more effeciently. There were a lot of agencies and private groups that were ready to help, but were delayed by FEMA.
Exactly. The FEMA you want is one that we had before Bush.
I don't hate Starbucks, just the one across the street from the other Starbucks. No, wrong block, the other Starbucks across the street from the other Starbucks. I am a Folgers drip guy. Sometimes Maxwell House, but I digress . . .
If the outcome measures for DARE had to do with the cool jackets, cars, and other gear that the cops get rather than actual drug-use related measures, it would be wildly successful. Maybe they just need new criteria.
Post a Comment