Bush Admin. Appoints Civil-Liberties Officer

Zephyros writes "The WSJ reports that the Bush administration has appointed a Civil Liberties Protection Officer in order to assuage the public's privacy concerns. From the article: 'As the son of a U.S. aid worker stationed in Guatemala during the 1970s civil war, Alex Joel recalls being unable to tell the good guys from the bad as both armed soldiers and civilians alike would order his family out of their car to search it. Those first-hand brushes with totalitarianism, says Mr. [Alex] Joel, have led him to take the rights of individuals very seriously.' It remains to be seen how effective he will be, but at least they're recognizing the concern."

Comments

Good first step

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Like Hitler appointing a blue ribbon panel to review the status of Jews.

Re:Good first step

[voice_of_all_reason]

This sentiment has natural immunity to godwin damage because it so excellently mirrors what the article says:

in order to assuage the public's privacy concerns

That's right, his supposed purpose is only to make people stop worrying about privacy (at least publically). Naturally, this can be accomplished somewhere between two extremes -- a) returning rights to the people, or b) summary executions

Re:Good first step

[Urusai]

I disagree. Bush is extremely concerned about privacy rights--for the Executive Branch.

Useless

[Stiletto]

Useless because he reports to the Director of National Intelligence. Now, if the Director of National Intelligence reported to HIM, then we might have something to celebrate.

No, no, no!

[sevenoverzero]

An executive-appointed position--regardless of which party is in power--is precisely where we cannot depend on our civil liberties being protected.

Fishy? Yeah.

[jonnythan]

I think this guy *knows without a doubt* that his place is to make the public feel better by showing the administration "cares," not to actually take the bull by the horns and enact any sorts of changes.

Talk about propaganda.

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[qwijibo]

Do you think tyrants know that they're tyrants? People can't judge themselves objectively.

A lot of people do some pretty bad things while believing they're doing good. Environmentalists firebomb buildings under construction. Animal rights activists sabotage labs and meat processing plants. They believe that they're helping their cause, but most people think that they're insane. Crazy people don't know that they're crazy. Everything they're doing makes perfect sense to them.

I'm not taking a side for or against Bush here, but I do think it's possible that he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing and this guy is there to provide confirmation. Sure, the administration isn't going to go on TV tomorrow night and say "Oh. My. God. We were really out of control. We're sorry. Please forgive us." However, some good can come out of someone who has access to more information than the public saying "umm, don't you think that's a bit excessive?"

Of course, the opposite position is just as likely. This guy could be a stooge that is there to help tell everyone that their liberties are being protected by the video cameras being installed in their homes. If you tell a lie often enough, you may get the majority to believe it. My personal favorite is the movement over the last several decades to declare the constitution unconstitutional. That's some mighty fine doublethink we got going on there. =)

Nothing To Hide

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

As the son of a U.S. aid worker stationed in Guatemala during the 1970s civil war, Alex Joel recalls being unable to tell the good guys from the bad as both armed soldiers and civilians alike would order his family out of their car to search it.

Let me guess. He wasn't scared because they had nothing to hide, just like all good americans!

Something tells me Joel's time in Guatemala was well spent taking notes.

Re:Nothing To Hide

[Chops]

That comment is really all you need to know to know that this guy isn't going to be worth shit as a "civil liberties officer." Armed men were pointing guns at him and rooting around in his things at random, and he was trying to find "good guys" among them.

"If only I knew which of these groups of murderous thugs I was supposed to place blind, obedient trust in..."

A.G.

[ktappe]

In a properly functioning administration, the U.S. Attorney General would be the defender of civil liberties.

-Kurt

World's fastest handwashing/exoneration.

[gowen]

When the NSA wiretapping program began, Mr. Joel wasn't working for the intelligence office, but he says he has reviewed it and finds no problems.

Why do I get the feeling that this was the only criterion on the job's person specification.

Powerless

[Billosaur]

While even critics of the administration applaud the effort, they question what authority these officials have. Unlike inspectors general at federal agencies, these privacy officers lack the subpoena power necessary to conduct investigations and don't report to Congress.

And so, they become propaganda tools and little else. They need to give the position teeth, but then that's exactly what the governent doesn't want, given how the 9/11 Commission took the goverment to task for its ineptitude. The last thing they need is a government-appointed civil liberties watchdog actually doing his/her job and exposing the malfeasance going on behind the scenes.

Is he going to be..

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

a REAL Civil Liberties Protection person or just a good actor at it? You know much like Gonzales is supposed be an Attorney General.

Expecting a conservative to mod me down in 3...2....1...

Now it is time to start worrying.

[www.sorehands.com]

When Bush appoints someone to protect our rights, we know we are going to lose alot more.

The Bureau of Civil Liberties

[955301]

Anyone who has a glimmer of hope about this, forget it. Here's a little summary of a comparable establishment, the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I was astonished, but wikipedia is strangely neutral about their existence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Indian_Affa irs

But here is some of the truth behind them. They were established to placate the Native population and to ensure that they are permanently marginalized.

They have stolen revenue from them,
http://www.earthportals.com/Portal_Messenger/bia.h tml

they are incompetent and their existence is a keep-your-enemies-closer solution to future American-Native American relations. Just ask anyone who has contracted with them.

You know the what if Microsoft built cars joke? Here's the equivalent BIA joke:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0304/S00127.htm

Lastly, note that the name of the agency still reflects an old way of thinking - It ain't the Bureau of Native American Affiars, a symptom of what little regard is given to the North American Natives.

A Civil Liberties appointee will bear some painful resemblences and be used more for turning to the population and placating them about the administration rather than speaking on behalf of the population to the President.

This is business-as-usual.

Re:You shouldn't...

[prell]

When I see stories like this, the first thing that occurs to me is that they're just trying to patch things up. There is overwhelming evidence that this position was created (or newly appointed) because the Bush Administration realizes that people continue to be concerned about this, and they simply want to seem like they care. If they actually cared, they wouldn't need to create this position. If they actually cared, they would get on with the actual work of securing and defending civil liberties and human rights, by doing things like: not torturing people; talk to the press; free information; not spying on people while hiding it and therefore lying about it; pressure China to stop threatening Taiwan and to stop taking over other countries and generally hegemonizing anything they can; have respect for the self-determination of the citizens of the world, and therefore not invade other countries; not putting the desire to control the oil of the Middle East over the rights of the citizens there, and the commitment to honesty with the American people; not thinking they know better what's good for the citizens of America than we can determine for ourselves; and, forcing your religion on the populous, and creating false and hateful issues like "the gay marriage debate" (which isn't a debate as much as it is a proclamation of manifest destiny), which takes advantage of and reinforces the intolerance of everyone involved, in order to divide people into warring factions so you can get votes.

For me to believe that the action of appointing this person to this post meant that the Bush Administration had changed its tune, I would have to believe that the Bush Administration had suddenly changed their whole mission to that of peace, discretion, prosperity, and well-being. And I don't believe that.

Time will tell if I'm right or wrong, but if yesterday's news of the resignation of the White House Press Secretary is part of this same plan to show America and the world that the Bush Administration is serious about being caring, then I'm inclined to be insulted -- because the job of Press Secretary is meaningless. All the Press Secretary has to do is tell the press what the rest of the Administration wants him or her to say. You could put anyone in that job. They aren't required to ab lib or create strategy, and I assume that if they did, they'd be fired.