[Marxism] A Card-Carrying Civil Libertarian

[abu hartal <abuhartal@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Doubtful that the revolutionaries at LBO-talk could be distracted from music 
videos to discuss this article below on Clinton's civil liberties record. 

Actually on that list you are more likely to hear statements on behalf of 
Clinton over Obama. For example, we are told that Obama would have voted for 
the war though no one thinks he would have voted for the Levin Amendment; we 
are told that Clinton really did not want Bush to go to war; we are told that 
Obama did not oppose Kyl Lieberman though the vote was rescheduled at the last 
minute and though he blasted it and though he has made much more politically 
risky strong strong statements for open and full bilateral talks with Iran; and 
we are told that Obama is not genuine because instead of holding oversight 
hearings on Afghanistan he is busy campaigning to become president. 

And presumably we are supposed to believe that Clinton is more anti war than 
Obama! This is the kind of stuff--along with guilt by association and ridicule 
of videos made by third parties and obsession with rumored off the record 
comments--that the LBO people think is most important on the eve of the 
decisive primaries. It's objectively right wing to do anything to prevent a 
decisive defeat of Clinton by Obama even if you want to vote for a third party 
in the general elections. Isn't that obvious? And given the ridicule of OBama 
supporters and the forwarding of two statements for Clinton over Obama isn't it 
obvious that LBO-talk is objectively a right wing support for the politics of a 
war state? 

Of course not one of the LBO revolutionaries can get himself to download and 
discuss something like this. And this article does not even discuss the 
significance of habeas corpus as emphasized by the Gitmo lawyers in support of 
Obama. 


March 1, 2008
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
A Card-Carrying Civil Libertarian

By JEFFREY ROSEN
Washington

IF Barack Obama wins in November, we could have not only our first president 
who is an African-American, but also our first president who is a civil 
libertarian. Throughout his career, Mr. Obama has been more consistent than 
Hillary Clinton on issues from the Patriot Act to bans on flag burning. At the 
same time, he has reached out to Republicans and independents to build support 
for his views. Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, has embraced some of the instrumental 
tacking of Bill Clinton, whose presidency disappointed liberal and conservative 
civil libertarians on issue after issue.

Mr. Obama made his name in the Illinois Legislature by championing historic 
civil liberties reforms, like the mandatory recording of all interrogations and 
confessions in capital cases. Although prosecutors, the police, the Democratic 
governor and even some death penalty advocates were initially opposed to the 
bill, Mr. Obama won them over. The reform passed unanimously, and it has been 
adopted by four other states and the District of Columbia.

In the Senate, Mr. Obama distinguished himself by making civil liberties one of 
his legislative priorities. He co-sponsored a bipartisan reform bill that would 
have cured the worst excesses of the Patriot Act by meaningfully tightening the 
standards for warrantless surveillance. Once again, he helped encourage a 
coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and libertarian conservatives. The 
effort failed when Hillary Clinton joined 13 other Democrats in supporting a 
Republican motion to cut off debate on amendments to the Patriot Act.

That wasn’t the first time Mrs. Clinton tacked to the center in a 
civil-liberties debate. In 2005, she co-sponsored a bill that would have made 
it a federal crime to intimidate someone by burning a flag, even though the 
Supreme Court had struck down similar laws in the past. (Mr. Obama supported a 
narrower bill that would have satisfied the Constitution.) And Mrs. Clinton 
opposed a moderate proposal by the United States Sentencing Commission that 
would have retroactively reduced the draconian penalties for possession of 
crack cocaine — a proposal supported by Mr. Obama, and by liberal as well as 
conservative judges.

The real concern about Hillary Clinton’s record on civil liberties is that her 
administration would look like that of her husband. Bill Clinton’s presidency 
had many virtues, but a devotion to civil liberties was not one of them. After 
the Oklahoma City bombing, the Clinton administration proposed many of the 
expansions of police power that would end up in the Patriot Act. (They were 
opposed at the time by the same coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and 
libertarian conservatives that Mr. Obama has supported.) The Clinton 
administration’s tough-on-crime policies also contributed to the rising prison 
population, and to the fact that the United States has a higher incarceration 
rate than any other country.

Hillary Clinton’s conduct during the Clinton impeachment does not inspire 
confidence in her respect for privacy. Kathleen Willey, one of the women who 
accused President Clinton of unwanted advances, charges in a new book that Mrs. 
Clinton participated in the smear campaigns against her. A federal judge found 
that the Clinton White House had “committed a criminal violation” of Ms. 
Willey’s privacy rights by releasing her private letters. (An appellate court 
later criticized the judge’s “sweeping pronouncements.”)

Whether Hillary Clinton’s administration would, in fact, look like Bill 
Clinton’s on civil liberties is hard to judge. In many areas, she has 
demonstrated an impressive commitment. She proposed a privacy bill of rights 
that would require consumers to “opt in” before their commercial data is shared 
and would allow them to sue companies for the misuse of data. She has called 
for the resurrection of a federal “privacy czar” who would balance the privacy 
costs and benefits of regulations.

She made an eloquent speech in the Senate opposing the suspension of habeas 
corpus. And she has emphasized the importance of Congressional oversight of 
executive power, promising as president that she would consider surrendering 
some of the authority that President Bush unilaterally seized. Clearly, she 
would be immeasurably better on civil liberties than George W. Bush.

But Mrs. Clinton’s approach to the subject is that of a top-down progressive. 
Her speeches about privacy suggest that she has boundless faith in the power of 
experts, judges and ultimately herself to strike the correct balance between 
privacy and security.

Moreover, the core constituency that cares intensely about civil liberties is a 
distinct minority — some polls estimate it as around 20 percent of the 
electorate. A polarizing president, who played primarily to the Democratic base 
and refused to reach out to conservative libertarians, would have no hope of 
striking a sensible balance between privacy and security.

Mr. Obama, by contrast, is not a knee-jerk believer in the old-fashioned 
liberal view that courts should unilaterally impose civil liberties protections 
on unwilling majorities. His formative experiences have involved arguing for 
civil liberties in the legislatures rather than courts, and winning over 
skeptics on both sides of the political spectrum, as he won over the police and 
prosecutors in Chicago.

As a former grass-roots activist, Mr. Obama understands the need to make the 
case for civil liberties in the political arena. At a time when America’s 
civil-libertarian tradition has been embattled at home and abroad, his 
candidacy offers a unique opportunity.

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, is the author 
of “The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America.”


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us 
Site Map
     
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism