Attempt To Frame Justin Amash's Protection Of Civil Liberties As 'Supporting Terrorists' Fails Miserably At The Polls

from the wake-up-authoritarians dept

Rep. Justin Amash has been one of the most involved and active voices in Congress on pushing back against the intelligence community's overreach and attack on our civil liberties. Many folks know him for the Amash Amendment, which would have defunded the NSA's bulk collection of phone records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. While it was narrowly defeated, it certainly woke up many in Congress to the fact that the surveillance scandal was a real deal. Over the last year, though, we'd been hearing more and more stories about how the "mainstream Republicans" were looking to unseat Amash in the primaries. Amash is often identified as being in the "Tea Party" wing of the party, and sometimes described as more "libertarian."

The very powerful US Chamber of Commerce targeted Amash as an "easy target" to oust, arguing that his views on civil liberties put him at odds with the (many) conservative voters in his district. The primary attack on him focused heavily on Amash's support for civil liberties, directly arguing that such protection of our civil liberties meant he was "supporting terrorists." Here, for example, is a campaign ad his primary opponent Brian Ellis used against him, quoting someone referring to Amash as "Al Qaeda's best friend in Congress" and claiming Amash wanted to "shut down American intelligence for monitoring terrorists." It quotes a veteran saying: "It makes no sense. We were out there fighting for the country and he's voting against anything that would help us." It's exactly the kind of campaign that you might expect would work in a heavily conservative, "American values" kind of district that Amash represents, if you believe in the traditional narratives and stereotypes. However, that effort failed miserably, and as Conor Friedersdorf explains, that's a good sign for civil liberties. There's this ridiculous narrative that "conservative" voters are in favor of surveillance and against protecting civil liberties, but that's always been a silly argument. Protecting civil liberties isn't "supporting terrorists," it's a fundamental concept in the Constitution and should be seen as an American value that cuts across any partisan divide.

His easy primary victory already matters because it shows that Republicans who want to rein in the NSA, repeal the Patriot Act, and close the prison at Guantanamo Bay can win a primary vote handily—even in a safe Republican district where a shameless opponent tries to portray them as siding with the enemy.

Amash's victory in the primary gives a bit of hope for civil liberties. It suggests that voters aren't the stereotypical morons that the traditional narratives often make them out to be. They can understand how protecting civil liberties should be a truly American ideal and it doesn't mean you're supporting terrorists. Earlier this year, the Republican National Committee came out against bulk surveillance by the NSA. It's increasingly becoming clear that the narrative that "Republicans have to support surveillance" is not an accurate story at all.

Bonuse: Amash's victory speech does not pull any punches in calling out the campaign against him.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, brian ellis, civil liberties, conservatives, justin amash, libertarians, republicans, tea party
Companies: us chamber of commerce

More Details Show IRS Targeted Groups Critical Of How The Government Was Run

from the ouch dept

Late on Friday (the time when people try to break bad news to avoid a big news cycle) the IRS admitted that the office that scrutinizes non-profit/tax exempt status of organizations had acted politically in targeting groups that had "tea party" or "patriot" in their names. Over the weekend, more details have been revealed showing that they further targeted groups that criticized how the government is being run including so-called "social welfare" groups. In other words: if you want to improve our government, the IRS might target you for a burdensome audit. As someone who regularly criticizes our government because I want it to act better, this is absolutely horrifying. I know that this issue has already descended for some into a "left" vs. "right" political battle, but this is an issue that everyone should be aghast about. While the full report hasn't been released yet (and, in fact, there are already accusations that the IRS has leaked parts to try to contain the fallout), some of the details are astounding:

The documents, obtained by The Washington Post from a congressional aide with knowledge of the findings, show that the IRS field office in charge of evaluating applications for tax-exempt status decided to focus on groups making statements that “criticize how the country is being run” and those that were involved in educating Americans “on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”

Educating people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights gets extra scrutiny by the IRS? Isn't that the kind of thing that we should be encouraging?

Are there groups that abuse the non-profit status? Probably. But targeting them based on their viewpoints goes way beyond what's allowed or should be seen as even remotely reasonable. As some have pointed out, politicizing the IRS was part of the impeachment articles against Nixon.

Is it so much to ask for a government that actually respects the Constitution? Or does simply asking for that make you a target?

Filed Under: advocacy, constitution, irs, non-profit, patriots, political targeting, tax exempt, tea party

Denver Post Sued Over Righthaven Connection

from the things-keep-looking-worse dept

This has not been a good week for Righthaven. Having lost the big lawsuit that almost certainly will knock out most of its other existing lawsuits (definitely in Nevada, though Colorado is still an open question), we now get the news that a Tea Party group targeted by Righthaven over Denver Post content isn't just countersuing Righthaven, but The Denver Post as well. A similar situation was what caused so much trouble for Righthaven in its Nevada suits. The Democratic Underground didn't just fight back against Righthaven, but dragged the newspaper, Stephens Media, back into the lawsuit as well. That resulted in the unmasking of the agreement between Stephens and Righthaven, showing that the copyright assignment was a sham -- and that Stephens Media was still very much a part of the lawsuit. Now that the same thing is happening in Denver, the same sort of agreement may come to light. Not that it seems like many other newspapers are rushing to sign up to work with Righthaven these days, but if they had any more doubt, the fact that people might sue them directly might seal the deal. In the meantime, we've finally found something that the Tea Party and Democratic Party supporters agree on: Righthaven and copyright trolling are a bad thing.

Filed Under: copyright, denver, denver post, standing, tea party
Companies: medianews, righthaven