Chris Christie: Your NSA Fears Are Bullshit And Civil Liberties Advocates Are Extremists
from the unelectable dept
The nice thing about hating both of America's stupid political parties is you get to make fun of everyone. That said, occasionally one political candidate or another says something so stupidly wrong to support a stupidly wrong political position that your brain screeches to a halt aghast. Today's cerebellum stopper is Chris Christie, who most commentators seem to think is going to be running in the next presidential election. If he continues this line of, "Civil liberties are for extremists and NSA spying concerns are baloney because 9/11" rhetoric, however, it's probably going to be a short foray into the primaries.
Civil liberties advocates’ fears about the government’s intelligence efforts are “baloney,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will say Monday during a speech in the early primary state of New Hampshire, calling for expanded American military and intelligence programs.Christie went on to say in that speech that the American people should not listen to Edward Snowden, because Snowden is a criminal, and also Vladimir Putin, and especially because 9/11, obviously. It's an interesting political move, I think, considering that a majority of Americans believe the government has overreached on domestic spying, but I'm not here to tell Christie how to run his campaign. I am here to tell him that he isn't allowed to make plainly false claims about this country's ideals and the people that developed them, however.
The government is not the enemy when it comes to fighting terrorist threats, he will say, according to a copy of his prepared remarks provided by his political action committee.
“There are going to be some who are going to come before you and are going to say, ‘Oh, no, no, no. This is not what the Founders intended.’ The Founders made sure that the first obligation of the American government was to protect the lives of the American people, and we can do this in a way that’s smart and cost-effective and protects civil liberties. But you know, you can’t enjoy your civil liberties if you’re in a coffin.”This, in case you're confused, is absolute nonsense. That's not to say that protecting American lives wasn't high on the founding fathers' list of things to do. It certainly was. It appears just below protecting their freedom, however. Christie suggesting that it was the founding fathers' intention to negotiate some compromise between freedom and safety is fiction. Man, if only there was some catchy phrase from a historical figure that could some this all up for me in an easily reproducable, easy-to-tweet to Christie fashion.
Damned extremists, always trying to, you know, start the country that Christie is now going to run for chief executive of. There are other examples, of course, although the chief example of the founding fathers' willingness to put freedom before safety is probably, oh I don't know, the Revolutionary War. I wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure that war wasn't all that safe.
Look, the point of all this is that 9/11, while certainly not forgotten, is in the rearview mirror and can't be invoked as the boogeyman to push bad, freedom-thieving policy on Americans any longer. We've had over a decade of that and it just isn't going to work any more. But, hey, if Chris Christie wants to make himself un-electable, I'm all for it. Give me a better candidate or give me death.
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: chris christie, civil liberties, nsa, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pillow talk?
Hmmm... wait a minute. How did his PAC get an advance copy of his remarks? Does that mean his campaign is in direct communication with his PAC? Better set out some more traffic cones, Chris.
(Or, as we in his home state call him, "Governor Chubby".)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pillow talk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pillow talk?
Even New Jersey doesn't deserve someone that hideous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pillow talk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pillow talk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's unfortunate that all these Constitutional protections don't seem to be enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the problem is that we 'The Electorate' can not be bothered to back them up.
Every time someone says... do what cops tell you, battle it out in the court where the odds are stacked against you, you can't harm someone when they are harming you, call the police, you don't have a right to protect yourself, Rosa Parks should have sat her ass at the back of the bus...
well you get the idea.
We failed and now we get to pay for it. Unless we get off of this 2-party bullshit ride per President George Washington's warning, the government will Murder and kill us for standing up for ourselves or we will have to Murder and kill back in defense of ourselves.
When you serve on a Jury, start exonerating people when they are hit with a law you think is bullshit! Their guilt at that point is moot, they should have never been tried to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
Yes I can see the attraction to not treat a business like a person with the same rights but its a fools errand because the only reason to do so is to push petty political agendas. And as long as your okay with removing humanistic rights from a business, then you have no standing to complain when your rights are removed either.
Businesses can still be regulated while they get to maintain their rights... it is stupid on its face to say you don't have rights any more when you decide to run a business. It only breeds more corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem today is that businesses get all of the benefits of being treated as a person, but very few of the same penalties apply. Businesses get away with crimes every day that an individual person would go to prison for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"deprive groups of people you don't agree with with their First Amendment rights, while reserving those rights for the groups of people you do agree with" ?
speech == $$$$$
therefore
poor people have no speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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:
not CORPORATE RIGHTS..
1. They could Hide money as easily..
Goto a bank as a person and get a second account in a different name..TRY IT..
2. How many Lawyers show up for a Person? when Corp money isnt behind them?
3. searching a Persons home is as Easy as THINKING something is happening, compared to Corps, and you HAVE TO KNOW and PROVE it before you even enter the door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand, I do believe the .1% is perfectly capable of funding major political campaigns in the absence of corporations, and so you actually have a point if you consider a broad logical interpretation of the comment you are responding to. That said, campaign contribution limits, and/or public election funds backed by greater scrutiny and restrictions on 'independent' political adverts (imposing the same restrictions on everybody) could greatly reduce the influence of deep pockets on politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution for living, breathing people. They never even dreamt of the concept of allowing an amoral money making entity have an equal say in our country's politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's correct for the most part. But behind all corporate speech, there's *always* individuals doing the speaking. There's always someone you can point to who wrote or authorized the speech.
So how do you justify the existence of the New York Times? They are a for-profit corporation and they routinely endorse candidates for office, and certainly 100% of their employees do not share the opinion of the official endorsement. Yet the paper clearly has a First Amendment right to endorse.
And to answer your last question: Yes. He owns the company so he can speak with the company's voice. He can also paint his factory neon pink or change from making cars to making tricycles if he feels like it, no matter mow much the workers disagree with the decisions. It is, after all, his company.
The only issue I have is with direct donations from corporations, since that can be used to bypass donations limits (if I can only donate $5000 per year, someone with a company shouldn't be able to donate $10000 by having their company do a donation too.) Donations shouldn't be considered "speech" even if they have an expressive component - the speech component of it is really just an endorsement of the candidate, which they should be perfectly free to do completely separate from any donation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Its a logical question. When a corporation speaks, who is actually doing the speaking. What is the source of that speech? The corporation has no will of its own, it can only act at the will of its employees, generally the will of its executives. This distiction of 'whom is doing the speech' can be seen often in the social media landscape. When facing a 'rogue' employee, his speech is readily distinguishable from the corporation's, even if his prior speech through the same channels were his own work, at his own direction, without significant input from his superiors. So who was talking?\
This question is important, because if the COrporation can only act on the initative of its executives, then is a political contribution not a political contribution made under someone else's name? Because that is an illegal donation. In fact, that very question has been debated amongst campaign finance experts because of a growing tendency to create shell LLCs or shell corporations designed to be the name plate on official reporting.
Newspapers, TV Networks and similar media companies, aside from ones which require anonymity, normally display who is speaking, along side the speech. In fact, it is often contractually mandated. If it was the corporation's speech being protected there, they wouldn't need to tell you whose speech it was.
The same protections now offered a corporation could be retained without requiring a corporation to have its own rights. The point of giving a corporation rights is to hide the names of the people actually doing the speech. PACs and SuperPACs destablize the political landscape by allowing those who pockets are big to speak more than those whose pockets are small. Moreover, they allow private individuals to hide their campaign contributions by donating most heavily in the last 3 months, when reporting wont happen until after the election. Not only can the targets of PAC or SuperPAC speech not determine who is speaking to them (For instance "The Coalition for Community-Driven Broadband" sounds far more consumer friendly then "The Coalition of AT&T, Comcast, and Time-Warner", as a rhetorical example), they often can not generate effective counter speech, though there has been progress in that regard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's also the point of my posting as an AC. There's nothing wrong with anonymous speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it involves removing the created fiction that corps are people. Pretty simple.
[ 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:
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=15&page=transcript
or his fairly accurate prediction on the issues of having political parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ah, Jury Nullification. I've heard of that before.
If you're planning on doing something like that, your best strategy is to maintain simply that you were not convinced by the prosecution. If you breathe a word about it before voir dire is complete, you'll find yourself tossed out of the jury pool. And if it gets mentioned in open court, the judge may well declare a mistrial.
It is not inconceivable that a judge might throw you out of the jury during the trial if a fellow juror makes mention to the judge of your questioning the law at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But the principal is the same. They lie to us, so we had better lie to them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which is useful to know if you need to get excused from jury duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://7thamendmentadvocate.org/blog/2010/06/quotes-of-the-day-founding-fathers-right-jury-trial -civil-suits/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm getting a lot of work out of my Rumsfeld paraphrase.
Whenever we decide to blame the people (or blame a demographic of the people) it just goes to show that no, the US Constitution wasn't enough. Human beings are not angels, and we don't have the capacity to always know our personal best interests, and vote for them (rather than values voting or defensive voting).
There are many many ways our government could be improved that we already know but cannot change due to too much disenfranchisement. And then we have problems we know will eventually wreck the next iteration that our framers knew when they made this one. I think they hoped the system would stay intact long enough that we could fix it.
People are people. You can demand rationality of a single person, but not of a voting bloc. Certainly not of a population. Non-point-source vigilance always becomes a tragedy of the commons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm getting a lot of work out of my Rumsfeld paraphrase.
...so what you're saying is:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That could be because too many in high places think the constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
be careful what you wish for
I'm not sure "better" is really achievable, given the current mix. You may have to settle for "not quite as blatantly stoking people's fears", but finding even that may be a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: be careful what you wish for
Humanity still deals with the same problems they dealt with 100 years ago. Corruption, corrupt bastards in politics treating citizens as serfs. We took care of them in the past, we can take care of them again if need be.
Chris Christie has made it clear he thinks himself a king and superior to us. Anyone voting for this clown deserves no liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: be careful what you wish for
It is a much more ancient problem than the last 100 years, society has always had difficulties and failures in keeping tyrants and totalitarians at bay. The ancient Greeks were familiar with the problem, and gave us the word tyrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: be careful what you wish for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: be careful what you wish for
While I don't agree with all of his policies I think he'd have a leavening effect on political discourse if elected POTUS. It's gone too far to the right; he might bring it back to the center.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: be careful what you wish for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: be careful what you wish for
I heard just this morning that by one measure the US has the fourth highest wealth inequality in the world. Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...Give me a better candidate...
Maybe it's time the US admits other countries have a better idea and go to wide open primaries with the top two going to the general election irregardless of their party affiliation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...Give me a better candidate...
To do away with it, you'd need a ranking voting system where lowest scoring candidates are thrown out and votes recounted until a majority winner was found. This would allow you to vote for who you wanted without putting your least favorite candidate into office
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...Give me a better candidate...
Any FPTP election system is a fertile ground for us versus them. The only way to improve the system in a feasible manner would be implementation of some of the proportionality election advantages like what you suggest. Voting in general elections should probably not happen more than twice for economic and participation/legitimacy reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim,
You will be missed.
Yours Cynically,
Reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The entire bill of rights is specifically designed to keep people free from the government. It also, in large part, makes keeping the peace and "hunting bad guys" hard by design. Just think how much easier the governments job would be if nobody else had guns, couldn't speak out against the government, could be forcibly detained, could be randomly investigated, etc. they realized that by making those things easy, it also made abuse easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Give me a better candidate or give me death."
Now Obama was actually a pretty good future president, like Carter is a pretty good former president, and either received a Nobel Peace Prize for his performance in the respective category.
It's just to bad that regarding presidents in office, the U.S.A.'s recent batting average is abysmal.
And the current lineup does not really offer much in the line of even a glimmer of hope. We'll get another greasy puppet animated by corporations and the military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Troubling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Troubling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Troubling
... though seeing him in a senate debate with trolls, hobgoblins, and lawyers doesn't sound that bad. Would he use mace-and-chain, or go trident-and-net, do you think? Maybe Longsword and environmental impact statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, in a very literal sense it appears just ahead of protecting their freedom:
Just saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is outlining the philosophical justification for the existence of an ideal government, and putting Life ahead of Liberty is actually very important. If we truly valued Liberty (the right to choose to do as we wish) more highly than protecting Life, there would be no valid reason for a government to outlaw any number of harmful things, up to and including murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If we take this to a logical extreme for fun, the question then becomes why doesn't the government just lock everyone up in solitary confinement? They're unlikely to be killed there.
Huh, the U.S. has the highest prison population in the world. I guess it's a work in progress?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I agree entirely that Christie's working from an invalid premise. My point is simply that that's no good reason for the author to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if there's actual evidence that the mass spying programs are saving our lives, I would prefer to have liberty instead.
I'd rather live free in a dangerous world than unfree in a safe world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Days of present past.
We're long overdue from a good reprimanding by father.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Save Lives?
2,996 people died from the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/911-death-statistics/
Motor Vehicle Deaths in the US each year:
2001: 42,196
2002: 43,005
2003: 42,884
2004: 42,836
2005: 43,510
2006: 42,708
2007: 41,259
2008: 37,423
2009: 33,883
2010: 32,999
2011: 32,479
2012: 33,561
2013: 32,719
Total: 501,462
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Simple fact is, terrorists are not a threat and never have been. Anyone afraid of terrorists yet rides in motor vehciles clearly lacks the ability to make rational decisions and should be ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Save Lives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Save Lives?
SHIT sorry, I've given the current administration an idea now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Save Lives?
Banning automobiles would hurt big corporations (oil, gas, autos).
Starting and fighting wars helps other big corporations (defense contractors, torture contractors, etc), while also not affecting the corporations in the previous paragraph.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Save Lives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Save Lives?
Although, when you do the other graph it looks a little bit steeper...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The government is not the enemy when it comes to fighting terrorist threats, he will say, according to a copy of his prepared remarks provided by his political action committee."
Unless the government decides that you are a terrorist threat.
Also,
"Any politician who truly wanted to save lives would be pushing legislation to bad automibiles."
No, any politician who wanted to save lives would push forward for self-driving automobiles and cleaner, more sustainable energy, even at the expense of Big Oil & Big Coal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But not on the self-driving cars. We've only seem a tiny glimpse of the enormous scope and size of security problems with smart cars because most of the research has been censored, silenced, and threatened out of publication. A self-driving car is a bot waiting to happen and it's not a question of IF, but only a question of WHEN, a self-driving car will be successfully remotely hacked.
Imagine what happens on I-95 in downtown Philadelphia at 7:20 on a Tuesday morning when every Honda on the road for miles in each direction simultaneously receives and executes a command to make a 90-degree left turn.
Far-fetched? Yeah. It is. And so was the idea of individual botnets with 10+ million members, not that many years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I like how you set up your claims so that they can't be challenged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Christie
Never go full retard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not relevant to the article, but . . .
What would he do given the power of the presidency?
Nuclear weapons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not relevant to the article, but . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not relevant to the article, but . . .
Maybe not, but two out of three lanes ain't bad for a first try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Christie on Civil Liberties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He was asked to run and say some really stupid stuff directly by the Republican Party to make their existing candidates seem sane by comparison (Remember Michelle Bachmann who claimed she was a witch and could actually FLY? - same thing).
It's an attempt to fill space with nonsense, pushing 'lesser' stories about Republicans who've taken bribes etc and are in the running to the 'backpages'. They do this every damn year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In New Hampshire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In New Hampshire?
"Live Free of Die" will be the motto of one of the cotton states once the Greens rule there.
Not anytime soon I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In New Hampshire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In New Hampshire?
You're telling me that's not how it's sposed to go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you mean "sum this all up".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't enjoy liberty from under the boot of a tyrant either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whY?
WHERE is the invasion INTO our country that forces the military to Wonder off into other nations, to BLOW UP, MORE civilians then terrorists?
Fighting for all humanity and democracy, in other nations is an interesting thought, and means we have MISSED allot of wars to wage it in..
All I see, fighting in other nations is only Pushing Corporate yearnings, with a CHEAP military force, that THEY dont pay for. Esp. when they arnt paying Taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe
"I support 1 set of laws for people like me and 1 set of laws for everyone else"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fixed:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christie is a well documented low-life
He is a low-life incapable of a civil act of introspection or any sense of fair play. He even screws the Police, which according to his rhetoric should be high on his list of people to please. So tell me who is for this thing?
That fat Jabba the Hut monstrosity is as close to a terrorist we have in public office. On the upside we know where he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shortest Wool Hairs Ever For Pulling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]