Slashdot Mirror
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."
Like Hitler appointing a blue ribbon panel to review the status of Jews.
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.
An executive-appointed position--regardless of which party is in power--is precisely where we cannot depend on our civil liberties being protected.
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.
Donald Rumsfeld moved to head new "Department of Peace".
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.
May the Maths Be with you!
-Kurt
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
I know that you were being sarcastic (At least I hope you were), but this won't change a thing.
k =1923742
Over a year ago, Bush created the "Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board". They haven't met a single time since the board was created.
The LA Times article that talked about it is now in their archives, and I believe is unavailable unless you pay for it.
Here is a posting that made Fark about it a while ago, although the linked to article is dead.
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLin
June 2003: Nuala O'Connor Kelly, (former Chief "Privacy" Officer of Doubleclick) appointed to be Chief "Privacy" officer for HomeSec.
February 2005: D. Reed Freeman, (former Gator/Claria Chief "Privacy" Officer) sitting on HomeSec's Data "Privacy" and "Integrity" Advisory Committee.
Maybe we should be thankful. Based on precedent, the BSA guy should be put in charge of the Copyright office, or perhaps hired by NSA to... adjust its priorities when it comes to what sort of traffic is worthy of further investigation.
April 2006: Department of Commerce, undersecretary for technology: Robert Cresanti, former VP of public policy at the Business Software Alliance (BSA).
Now we have a guy who "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", and who says one of his best qualifications for the job includes "first-hand brushes with totalitarianism" in charge of Civil Liberties instead.
"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun."
- Ash, Army of Darkness (1993)
Anyways, freedom's overrated these days. You know what they do to people in those freedom camps? (Yeah, neither do I, and I'd like to keep it that way!)
There's still time to appoint Jeff Bezos to run USPTO! (I've got a $10 bet riding on it, so please, write your Congressmen today! :)
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...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022006R.shtml
Privacy Guardian Is Still a Paper Tiger
By Richard B. Schmitt
The Los Angeles Times
Monday 20 February 2006
A year after its creation, the White House civil liberties board has yet to do a single day of work.
Washington - For Americans troubled by the prospect of federal agents eavesdropping on their phone conversations or combing through their Internet records, there is good news: A little-known board exists in the White House whose purpose is to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are protected in the fight against terrorism.
Someday, it might actually meet.
Initially proposed by the bipartisan commission that investigated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was created by the intelligence overhaul that President Bush signed into law in December 2004.
More than a year later, it exists only on paper.
Foot-dragging, debate over its budget and powers, and concern over the qualifications of some of its members - one was treasurer of Bush's first campaign for Texas governor - has kept the board from doing a single day of work.
On Thursday, after months of delay, the Senate Judiciary Committee took a first step toward standing up the fledgling watchdog, approving the two lawyers Bush nominated to lead the panel. But it may take months before the board is up and running and doing much serious work.
Critics say the inaction shows the administration is just going through the motions when it comes to civil liberties.
"They have stalled in giving the board adequate funding. They have stalled in making appointments," said Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.). "It is apparent they are not taking this seriously."
The Sept. 11 commission also has expressed reservations about the commitment to the liberties panel.
"We felt it was absolutely vital," said Thomas H. Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey who led the commission. "We had certainly hoped it would have been up and running a long time ago."
The inaction is especially noteworthy in light of recent events. Some Republicans joined Democrats to delay renewal of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act because of civil liberties concerns. And the disclosure in December that Bush approved surveillance of certain US residents' international communications without a court order has caused bipartisan dismay in Congress.
"Obviously, civil liberties issues are critically important, and they have been to this president, especially after 9/11," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, adding that the White House had moved expeditiously to establish the board. "We do not formally nominate until we are through the background investigation and the full vetting. It takes time to present those nominations to the Senate. But now that they have been confirmed, that is a good thing."
The board chairwoman is Carol E. Dinkins, a Houston lawyer who was a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. A longtime friend of the Bush family, she was the treasurer of George W. Bush's first campaign for governor of Texas, in 1994, and co-chair of Lawyers for Bush-Cheney, which recruited Republican lawyers to handle legal battles after the November 2004 election.
Dinkins, a longtime partner in the Houston law firm of Vinson & Elkins, where Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales once was a partner, has specialized in defending oil and gas companies in environmental lawsuits.
Foremost among her credentials, she told Senate Judiciary Committee members in a response to their questions, was the two years she spent as deputy attorney general in President Reagan's Justice Department. There, she said, she had to weigh civil liberties concerns while overseeing domestic surveillance and counter-intelligence cases.
The board vice chairman is Alan
Now thats not quite accurate, its not as if we live in a society where the government tapes public and private areas looking for wrongdoing... wait, let me start over.
Now thats not quite accurate, its not as if we went to war for the sake of going to war... well, we went to war to make the rich richer, so let me start over.
Now thats not quite accurate, its not as if terrorist attacks are being perpetrated against ourselves by ourselves to trump up support for the war... wait, yes we are...
Well crap, I've got no real response here. 1984 is a good book, and scarilly relevant in this current administration. Anyone have a rebuttal?
When Bush appoints someone to protect our rights, we know we are going to lose alot more.
Fight Spammers!
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_Aff
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.
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.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
"Dick, they're getting upset." ..." ... wouldn't that kinda hurt us?"
"Why?"
"Well, 'cause we pretty much snoop at them."
"So?"
"Well, ya know, the things 'bout land of free and
"We already eliminated home of the brave, and they kinda liked it. So?"
"Well, it ain't good, ok? They might finally find out that we're not really working in their favor."
"Hmm. I know. We'll appoint someone to take care of civil liberties and observe it all."
"But
"How so?"
"Well, if he's constantly telling us what we can't do?"
"Never said anything 'bout telling us what to do, did I? I said OBSERVE."
"And then?"
"No then. File a nice li'l report to be put into the big round storage under your desk."
"And what should that do?"
"Make them think that someone's taking care of liberty. While we take care of what's left of it."
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Don't you mean "Donald Rumsfeld moved to head new ' Ministry of Peace'?" That's rather double double minus bad of you for misspelling the name of the ministry.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Well, I'm immediately sceptical of any Bush appointees motives.
You have...
The mining lobbyist as a number 2 in the Department of the Interior and a cattle rancher laywer as the chief counsel.
The pharmaceutical lawyer acting as lead counsel for the FDA.
The meat industry lobbyist running our meat labelling program.
The number 2 in the EPA was a Monsanto executive, and his pick for chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality represented GE in its fight against cleaning up its own toxic waste. The chief of staff left to go work for Southern Company (a major owner of coal plants) a week after clean air standard were relaxed.
Read more.
Essentially, Bush has packed every government enforcement agency with people who have spent their careers trying to help companies get out of complying with regulations meant to protect the people. Even his own Supreme Court nominees are strong advocates of executive power. His legacy has been to undermine every control meant to keep him and his supports from running out of control.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").