NJ Gov. Chris Christie: Opposing NSA Surveillance Is A 'Strain Of Very Dangerous Thought'
from the because-protecting-civil-liberties-is-like-hugging-terrorists dept
New Jersey governor Chris Christie may be looking forward to a possible presidential run in 2016, which would at least partially explain his broadside attack on Justin Amash (of the "defund the NSA amendment") and Rand Paul and their "strain of libertarianism" that's now threatening established American institutions like domestic spying and fighting Wars on Stuff.Christie invoked an old standby to criticize recent legislative activity like the narrow defeat of Amash's amendment and Rep. Rush Holt's recently introduced bill to repeal the PATRIOT Act.
“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said.Christie went on to characterize these debates as "esoteric" and "amnesiac."
Asked whether he includes Paul — a fellow potential 2016 presidential candidate — in his criticism, Christie didn’t back down.
“You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this,” he said. “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. … I’m very nervous about the direction this is moving in.”
“I think what we as a country have to decide is: Do we have amnesia? Because I don’t,” he said. “And I remember what we felt like on Sept. 12, 2001.”For starters, debates pertaining to the rights of millions of Americans are hardly "inside baseball," indicating Christie isn't familiar with the definition of the term he chose to deploy. As for being "amnesiac," Christie might be best served with a blow to the head to jog his memory -- many aspects of these programs were in place pre-9/11. The 9/11 attacks ushered in the PATRIOT Act, something hurriedly passed with bipartisan support. Now that the bipartisan movement (a.k.a. "strain of libertarianism") is moving in the opposite direction, Christie suddenly feels this sort of cooperation is "dangerous."
But the most depressing part of Christie's rant is how completely rote the argument is, as Gene Healy at Reason points out:
[H]aven't the arguments for unrestrained spying gotten any better over the last 11 years? Talk to the "widows and orphans," visualize a smoking crater, and write a blank check to the Security-Industrial Complex?At some point during any discussion of the NSA's programs, defenders invoke an attack that wasn't prevented and/or attacks theoretically prevented by this surveillance. Very occasionally another attack that wasn't prevented is dragged into the mix (the Boston bombing), its rare appearance largely due to the fact that all of these programs failed to prevent the sort of terrorist attack we're always being told the programs are in place to prevent.
Continually going back to the "9/11" well does very little to push the "discussion" forward. Defenders of the surveillance state obviously prefer it this way. If the discussion moves forward, the shortcomings of the programs are revealed and the abuses uncovered are left without a credible defense. Justifying future abuse using a past tragedy is nothing more than baldfaced attempts to guilt the public (and their representatives) into exchanging more liberty for security.
At this point, defenders like Christie are taking on the appearance of Sally Struthers stand-ins, dragging victims of terrorist attacks through smoking ruins, asking members of the public to donate some of their "excess" privacy in order to "ensure" a future free of further attacks. Obama has said he "welcomes" a debate on these issues, but then slams the door by calling legislative efforts like Amash's counterproductive. Other politicians running flack for the national security agencies have made no such overtures, but tellingly, their reactions and justifications are largely the same.
This "strain of libertarianism" doesn't threaten anything more than the growth of government and its intrusion into everyday lives of American. The fact that it has gone unchecked for so long is what's actually "dangerous," to use Christie's words. To derail the discussion by continually invoking 9/11 is nothing more than a cheap form a manipulation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 9/11, chris christie, civil liberties, fear, libertarians, nsa surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's rather amusing! I can imagine the dissonance of some older folks who still live in the 1960's along with a few younger but as clueless peeps yelling against Communism and Libertarianism at the same time ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I kind of wonder how the Libertarian Party feels about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I used to think Christie might make a good President, but not any more. He's lost my vote forever with this shit. Fuck him and the party he rode in on.
If there's one way the Republicans guarantee a loss in 2016, this is it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, most libertarians constantly vote Democrat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG, the Children & 9/11
Well I know how I feel everyday, knowing that the NSA & the vast majority of elected officials think the Constitution is akin to toilet paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG, the Children & 9/11
I remember what I thought on 9/11.
I thought - "We have to avoid creating big obvious targets for attack."
That would have been a much more sensible course of action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OMG, the Children & 9/11
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OMG, the Children & 9/11
This thought seem more and more confirmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG, the Children & 9/11
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG, the Children & 9/11
I thought maybe we should stay out of other people's business so they do not hate us so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We responded by showing them we could lack freedom even more then we already do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK
"We don't think you should be spied on by your government."
Easy peasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can the word libertarian be used as a negative description of any American? Liberty is, or at least was, one of your core values.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trust the Computer, Citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now it's libertarians because now the government has gone all out communist propaganda spy state and being called on it.
Libertarians were their god damn bed fellows not a couple months ago when they were trying to kill health care and whatever "Government overreach" bull crap attacking liberals calling them communists.
They just flip flop stomping on different people's feet back and forth trying to have it every way possible.
No healthcare because it's overreach and stomping on the constitution, but flying in the face of the fourth amendment? Fuck who cares about that. We'll impeach the black guy because something to do with an embasy or some such nonsense, promoting healthcare?! double impeach! But shitting on the constitution? Hell that's a fine upstanding fellow, lets defend him and not even talk about impeachment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's a politician and has to appeal to voters.
The majority of US voters are cowards and anything that looks, feels, sounds or smells of anything that might expose them to even imaginary danger will sink a political career faster than a very very fast thing.
Christie is talking to his cowardly base and the cowardly floating voters just as Obama and the Dems are appealing to their cowardly base and the cowardly floating voters.
The only solution is for the US to increase the percentage of non yellow bellies in it's electorate and that sure isn't going to happen anytime within the next century.
The lifeblood of the US is poisoned with fear, probably not just purely irrational fear, but added to the fear that after what the US has done all over the world people must want to do the same things back to them.
The classic fear of the bully in other words and like that classic fear, there may even be something to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Old school Republicans only fear going bankrupt because defense spending might go down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe we, as a nation, can reinvest in some moral integrity for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No need. We have plenty of people in congress and the current administration trying to legislate morality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coward
Tell me that if Romney was elected we wouldn't be having this same discussion or McCain before that. Tell me Mr. Coward, who would you have us "cowardly" voters elect? (cause I sure didn't see any more choices on the ballots when I voted.)
The two party system is FAIL, being its all a Chinese menu at this point (one from column A one from column B). In order to affect any real change in our government people have to start ordering from "off the menu".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Coward
You get the opportunity whether you like it or not to take responsibility for who you elect and what they do.
Whether you take on the responsibility for it or not, you are responsible.
So don't whine to others going "but it's all a mess and I don't know what to do, please tell me what to do oh wise one"
It's your mess, you damn well take responsibility and clean it up and stop whining.
You're like Obama whining to the rest of the world back in his first term that they weren't doing enough to help him to close Guantanamo Bay.
Why have the citizens of the US allowed wars against people who did nothing to you, because of fear.
Why have US citizens allowed massively expanded powers for acronymic agencies, because of fear.
How is all US politics conducted - in an atmosphere of fear.
Obama is a Muslim, Kenyan Communist.
A healthcare system like almost any other in the rest of the western world would mean Death Panels.
etc
etc
etc
I could put any name I wanted on this and it wouldn't make me any more identifiable or my point any more or less valid.
BTW try a survey of people from anywhere on the planet and you'll find the connection between US and cowardice to crop up far more often than not.
So step up and do something or shut up and sit back down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Coward
So what? We get to select from a pre-chosen slate of people who, in terms of how willing they are to "represent" us, are all roughly the same. These people get to operate in a system where they cannot do a whole lot on behalf of the people even if they genuinely want to.
Please explain how we can take responsibility for what our "representatives" do. If they don't do as we want, what can we do about it? Don't answer "vote them out," as that's a false choice -- voting them out just means voting in someone else who will do the same things.
I cannot be responsible for what I cannot control. The problem isn't the people we're electing -- the problem is the system itself.
And that's a totally valid connection. The US, as a nation, is being destroyed by its own cowardice.
Speaking out is an important part of "doing something," so your call to shut up and sit down makes no sense. But that aside, what do you suggest we do?
Aside from what we've been doing -- which is a lot more than you seem to think -- the only other action I can think of is revolution. And I'm still of the opinion that things haven't gotten so bad that revolution is the lesser evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Coward
Whining on doesn't
Guess which you're doing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Coward
The one's making this connection have no problem calling the U.S. cowardly, until it comes time to ask for help with everything from surviving a war (France, Great Britain, Australia, Poland, Korea, The Philippines, most of the EU), to fiscal support (Pick just about any country and you will find the US giving them money and other subsidies.)
The U.S. may be a lot of things... Bully, gullible, shameless, na�ve, and idealistic come to mind... but cowardly isn't among them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Coward
Please don't bring up specifics of those examples so that those educated in history have to brutally destroy them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Coward
That we're still in the process of gutting our society in an effort to be "safe" is a strong indication that this cowardice runs deep to the bones.
I know you may not agree, but to most people (and especially to most of the world), we look like rather huge cowards who happen to have a big gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What" The totalitarian state or the fact I don't want you reading my emails without a warrant? Fucking asshat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I remember what we felt like on Sept. 10, 2001. That's the America I want back, and I don't blame "the terrorists" for what I'm feeling now. I blame our power hungry government who have long lost sight of what their job truly is. I want the same Constitutional rights now that I had 12 years ago.
Christie can go to hell along with every other money grabbing, Constitution destroying politician this country has. They must all be voted out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as his claims of amnesia goes. No we do not have amnesia. We can remember perfectly well when our Constitution meant something more than a vestigial part of our history. Our memories work perfectly fine. And rest assured, the indiscretions of the establishment are not something that we will simply forget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fix that for you Christie
Wake up, you ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With everything else you have you went with a fat joke?
But I don't have contempt for you for it, I do have contempt for anyone who clicked on funny for it though.
+1 insightful - to help you feel how really clever you are
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If this technology were to ever exist, right now there is no doubt the government would use it against us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is this, I don't even...
And to insult my recollection of September 12th by saying that the wholesale stripping of the entire Bill of Rights from US citizens and the mangling of the built-in separation of powers is acceptable? I would rather be as "unsafe" as I was on September 10th if it means that I am still able to expect my rights to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a comforting to know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A thought or two about NSA serveillance.
Am I for complete and utter abolishment of all NSA surveillance programs? No. Admittedly I'm not, but only because of the track record of the NSA lacking transparency in the first place. The problem I have with the current attitude is that most people are going to translate "oh let's dial it back a bit and rework it so we don't stomp on civil liberties", into "we need to have no spying whatsoever".
Chris Christie isn't for the current spying. She, like I, is seeing what the public wants, and watching Comgress overdo the language of the laws they create. After all, the PATRIOT Act is the exact result of overreaction which entails overdoing everything to the Nth degree. When the public asks for something, Congress is known to be very gunho. When we ask them to dim the lights...they will turn off the electrical feed to your house. It's that type of overreaction that is the true danger right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A thought or two about NSA serveillance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A thought or two about NSA serveillance.
You're right, I however have a problem. The main argument under section 215 is that the phone records were actually meant for non-US citizens who have. The "warrantless" use of collecting phone data on foreigners calling to and from US soil was the main focus. The issue is somewhat different. PRISM changed that because of the way the FISC interpreted section 215. Either way, it got skewered into "collect all foreign and domestic data". This is the rubber stamping that Mike and other writers are complaining about.
For those who don't know, in the pre-9/11 days, the FBI handled all domestic wire taps....and with a warrant. The NSA, with its wonderful "Never Say Anything" attitude, handled all calls coming into the US through its ANCHORY program. ANCHORY had no provisions of transparency because it was assumed that the NSA would cooperate with the FBI....then the USS Cole incident happened. During the investigation, it was determined that the NSA was withholding vital information from the US Navy...which could have prevented the incident.
Then almost a year and a month later 9/11...once again the NSA withheld the data from the FBI and the FAA...once again, this could have been prevented.
The point I carry is that the NSA, at one time, refused to hand over the data without a warrant. That's the reason Section 215 exists in the PATRIOT Act. It forces the NSA to share its data when probable cause is warranted. Saying you're going to bomb something or someone and discussing detaed plans on how you're going to execute your plan is probable cause to be recorded.
Due to FISC's interpretation, there is warrantless spying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A thought or two about NSA serveillance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A thought or two about NSA serveillance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A thought or two about NSA serveillance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A thought or two about NSA serveillance.
Chris Christie is a man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiot
Does he have amnesia? What about July 4th 1776?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiot
It is always a danger to hastily make laws in the wake of a tradgety because the focus is always on the short term and nobody thinks about the future except how up prevent a second tragedy. The PATRIOT Act was definitely created in such a way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I seem to remember there being a whole speech by Bush on how we won't be scared or intimidated or the terrorists have won....
... a decade plus later, we're trying to add more survellience to protect us from the scary and intimidating terrorists!
Who has amnesia Christie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah but you have to remember that came after he first ran away and hid in a bunker.
True it was way more comfortable than Saddam's and true Saddam didn't run to his at the first sign of trouble but the clear message was given that cowardice was the first instinct of the president.His re-election meant that huge numbers of people in the US were okay with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anmesia
It's Christie who has amnesia. His memory goes back to September 11 and then stops. He's forgotten all of the history before that, which shows is that the state and federal governments have abused these types powers every time they have had them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easier
But his stance on NSA spying is HORRIBLE. MANY things would make life easier for law enforcement - tracking chips embedded in everyone, audio and video surveillance in every house, etc.
Just because something make life easier for law enforcement, doesn't mean it's right... or Constitutional. The original settlers mostly came to the "colonies" to escape governmental oppression of some sort. The writers of the Constitution thought it was so important to limit what government could do, that they limited the government to specific things and then re-iterated that in the Bill of Rights.
Idiots who think over-reaching "intelligence" agencies are good really are stupidly naive. Giving the government - who is NOT benelovent - any more power over you (ie. information) is a HUGE mistake. The government is run by mostly power hungry despots who do their best to get into positions where they can lord over people - sad, but true - not everyone - but most.
If you get in their way, they will smack you down with whatever tools they can. Just look at the last election cycle - tax records released to the press on certain candidates, bogus IRS liens on candidates, IRS targeting conservative groups which in essence prevented certain candidates from receiving as many donations, etc.
I know from working with the government and working for them (as a contractor), that they are NOT smart, they are NOT in it to help others and they WILL use whatever they can to burn their "enemies" to a cinder.
Don't give them one more inch they they need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Christie - STFU - 9/11 did not change the Constitution, period!
I'll tell you the answer, 0 - Zero - Zilch - Nada - Zip.
Not a single one - it doesn't have anything to do with counter terrorism and everything to do with Nazi style "papers please" every 3 feet you walk down the street (or in this case, information highway).
You say the activity isn't treasonous? I call bullshit. It violates the constitution, therefor it's treason.
Anyone actively supporting/implementing these activities are traitors to the people - you know - those (in your words) petty little pissants that the government is actually beholding to.
That simple little line at the beginning...
By the people, of the people, for the people.
"We the people" are the bosses, not some nazi-style treasonous constitutional terrorist running the ABC entities, courts and government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey Christie - STFU - 9/11 did not change the Constitution, period!
It's treason because it violates the people of the United States, not the Constitution. It's ILLEGAL because it violates the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are at a stage where we seriously have to devise strategies on how to turn this around. Not just hypotheticals. Not just bemoaning the passivity of our fellow citizens. Not atrophy our ability to exercise our rights by receding into cynicism. Organize! We need to speak with friends, family members and coworkers. We need to convince them that this has gone too far. That our pet issues are not important anymore when the constitution can be so blatantly and openly ignored. Forget healthcare and how that makes Obama a nazi. Forget gun gontrol. Forget fiscal policy. Teach your younger friends and family members critical thinking. Teach them to recognize logical fallacies, faulty arguments and rhetoric tricks. Teach them to see through propaganda and empty political communication. Do this whithout pushing any hot-button-issue, just talk about the mechanisms of deception and self-deception.
We must not vote red team or blue team anymore, because as has become painfully clear, both are part of the problem. Both are ruled by authoritarians and lobby interests and both are happy to gerrymander and fool you out of your effective vote. Do not make the mistake to accept the surveillance state because it comes with a number of your preferred policies. It is like accepting 1,000 $ in exchange for full access to your bank account. Call for the abolition of first-past-the-post (it can be mathematically shown to degenerate into a two-party-system with high entry hurdles). Vote third party, create incentives for competent people to join a third party or founding their own.
Start using strong encryption everywhere. Help your friends use it too. Don't fall for the incentives that make you offer lots of personal information (like payback-schemes, insurance discounts for healthy living or voting-machines for convenience). Avoid services like facebook, skype and google. If you are an engineer build tools to replace them and make them trivial to use. Do not accept jobs that make you a cog in the surveillance machine, well-paying as they may be. If you are a researcher do not develop data-mining and face-recognition systems, however civil and benign a purpose they may serve, they will be part of your own future shackles.
We also have to show presence on the streets, on a broad platform. This is about the surveillance state: Do not put off sympathizers by pushing other issues, however important they may seem. We have to create pressure, perhaps by striking, certainly by civil disobedience. While i am not calling for violence some laws will be broken. There will be even more laws - they will be treating peaceful protesters like terrorists. Yes we will have to sacrifice wealth, and in some cases a significant amount. Yes some protesters will get hurt, locked up or even killed.
But we have to turn this around. If we don't a dystopian society awaits our children. It won't be as openly repressive as past dictatorships. It won't be like old-fashioned fascism or communism. It will come in the form of a supposedly benign totalitarian oligarchy that will still adorn itself with formally being a republic. It won't need as much in-your-face repression. It will have far more effective and subtler means to control you. It will still destroy lives, but public opinion will never be on the side of the victims anymore, not even in secret. It will know everything about you but you won't even think that's a problem anymore. It will sense and steer your political opinions before you have even formed them. It will still benefit an elite minority at the expense of everyone else and it will take away everybody's means to oppose it (including the elite that benefits from it).
And remember: That it seems like there are too many issues to tackle and that every organized effort gets bogged down in the bureaucracy are deliberate tactics. There are paid shills all over the popular internet forums using both trolling and seemingly thoughtful discussions to stifle criticism. Your side-tracked discussions and waste of time by replying as well as your cynicism and misanthropy are their purpose, as these lead to inaction. We will need to be persistent. We must not give up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PlayNicely
That was the most intelligent, powerful, well-written, and frighteningly clairvoyant post I've read on any forum on any subject.
Thank you.
Is there someplace where people can see more of your thoughts displayed ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]