Yesterday, my column “10 Reasons The United States Is No Longer The Land Of The Free” ran in the Sunday Washington Post. I have been heartened by response to the column. However, a few commenters continue to suggest that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) does not allow for the indefinite detention of citizens. This claim is being advanced by Senator Carl Levin (D., Mich.) in emails and fax messages to voters. I wanted to respond to Senator Levin’s points which are detached from language of the law and the clear intent of the majority of Senators. I would also like to address those who have stated that our liberties are not at risk when such powers will not affect most Americans.
I have previously explained why the claim by Sen. Levin is unfounded, as have others like the ACLU and commentators like Glenn Greenwald. The White House itself offered the spin to supporters in Congress, explaining why the President reneged on his pledge to veto the law. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the real section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial. Section 1031 only contains a meaningless provision stating “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
First, this provision was added after an amendment to exempt citizens was defeated by the Senate — legislative history that any court is likely to note in the interpretation of its meaning.
Second, the fact that the Senate put a clear exemption in the mandatory detention provision for citizens but opted not to simply include the same provision in the discretionary detention provision reinforces this meaning.
Third, after the exemption for citizens was defeated overwhelmingly, the same Senators who voted to deny any exemption proceeded to vote for this language — clearly indicating that it did not offer such protection for citizens.
Fourth, Levin and others are seeking to deny the authority that the President just acknowledged in his signing statement. Obama stated “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” He does not deny that he has such authority . . . only that he does not intend to use it.
Fifth, Levin admitted on the floor that it was the White House that insisted on eliminating the exemption for citizens — affirming that without such an exemption, citizens would be subject to such detention. In an exchange with Senator Udall, Levin stated:
Is the Senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee, and that we removed it at the request of the administration that this determination would not apply to U.S. citizens and lawful residents? Is the Senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language, the absence of which is now objected to by the Senator from Illinois?
Sixth, many of the members at the time of passage voiced their understanding that the provision authorized the indefinite detention of citizens – including those who wanted such a power codified and those who opposed the power. For example, At least Senator Lindsey Graham was honest when he said on the Senate floor that “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
Seventh, the language that was ultimately put into the bill was standard cover language for Senators who knew that they would be criticized for voting for the law. Indeed, when Levin referred to the language, he insisted that it would merely permit what is already permitted by law “whatever it may be.” Of course, the White House has claimed the right to kill citizens on the president’s sole authority. The indefinite detention of citizens would seem the lesser included in such a greater. Moreover, the Senators refused to change the existing law by putting in an exemption for citizens. It is also worth noting that the White House has successfully opposed the right of citizens to present national security powers to federal courts for independent review. What is the “law” is often only the assertion of power by the President – unchecked by judicial review.
Levin has been hammered by civil libertarians and liberals over his role in passing this harmful law. His official Senate site now features a statement at the top. One of his financial supporters (who told me that he had declared that he will not to support Levin in the future due to the bill) sent me the following email from Levin’s office:
“The provisions on detention of terror suspects in the bill got more attention than all these other important priorities. The criticism of these provisions has usually been wildly inaccurate; if the bill did what some of its critics claim, I would have led the opposition. . . . It does not prohibit civilian trials for terror suspects. It does not strip the FBI and other civilian law enforcement agencies of their authority. It does not allow the military to make arrests on U.S. soil. It does not enact new authority to hold U.S. citizens without trial or charge. It does not provide for indefinite detention of citizens without access to civilian courts.”
Note the use of new authority. This is authority that has been claimed as being part of the President’s inherent authority — just as he claims the right to kill citizens. However, this law codifies new detention powers and the Senate expressly chose not to exempt citizens — and the President himself acknowledged the ability to indefinitely detain citizens in his pledge not to use it. Moreover, it was the duty of Levin and others to fight the passage of this law in the absence of an exemption, including fighting to use every power available from a filibuster to demanding a president veto. Instead, they took the political convenient approach and sought to excuse their act of constitutional nonfeasance behind this meaningless language.
I am hardly shocked that senators are not answering the criticism over this provision by being open about their failure to protect citizens. However, I continue to be amazed by comments on the Washington Post and this blog from citizens that we are not really losing any rights because most citizens are unlikely to be subject to these powers. It is disgraceful argument that only “those” people will be denied rights so I must remain free. Of course, since these are secret powers, you are not likely to know if you have been subject to surveillance or some other measures. More importantly, something is not a right if it is discretionary with your government to allow or to take away. By the time you find yourself denied of the right, it is too late to do anything about it. It is the same amoral logic described by pastor Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak out because I was Protestant.Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Thankfully are we not facing the type of horror faced by Niemöller, but the logic is the same: I do not need to object unless the government denies me a right.
The government always embraces abusive power by targeting the least popular among us. The test of patriotism is to fight for the values that define us. While people appear ready to protest over taxes against “big government,” some of the people often seem to remain silent in the face of the very abuses that the Framers sought to combat from indefinite detention to warrantless searches to assassination. The play on security as a rationale to limit freedom is nothing new. As Benjamin Franklin observed, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Jonathan Turley
Sept. 20, 2001 – Bush Declares War on Terror
Ooo . . . dueling Madisons. Sweet.
Bob,Esq.:
That diminutive angel also said this:
“If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate their respective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers..”
That’s all I am saying too.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
—Some crazy conspiracy theorist.
Mespo: “This legislation provides enough room for a nefarious camel to visit some real damage on the Constitution until some court pulls his nose out from the tent.”
And drafting legislation that now allows camels to poke their hitherto prohibited noses into the tent isn’t malfeasance how?
Bob,Esq:
I’ll leave that for them to say, but if that is not the logical extension it can only be that they proponents were duped. I’m not dismissing yours and others propositions as crazy conspiracy theories, I merely point out another reasonable — and in my judgment more plausible — interpretation of the Bill’s language that is glossed over by detractors under the rubric of “meaningless language.” Bottom line the Bill is neutral on the issue of indefinite citizen detention but does codify combatant detention because neither side could get the votes for the more extreme positions with regard to citizen detention. This was Feinstein’s compromise language and, while troubling, left the matter for SCOTUS to flesh out. Political courage–no; Tyrannical design- no. Politics as usual — yes.
Gene,
Check your email.
Mespo: “To accept your view means the entire government from Bush Republicans to Obama Democrats are in direct conspiracy to enslave the American public? Is that really your position? That is the logical extension of the rhetoric against this Bill.”
Of course, that would include Jonathan Turley and Mike Appleton as well.
Is that really your position Mark? Once again, in lieu of engaging the argument, you’ll just summarily dismiss our concerns as ‘crazy conspiracy theories?’
Gene H:
You put your finger precisely on the problem I see here. This legislation provides enough room for a nefarious camel to visit some real damage on the Constitution until some court pulls his nose out from the tent.
I still see smoke, but no fire, Bob.
My primary issue with the NDAA is its vagueness and the propensity of bad actors to exploit vagueness. As mespo says, this will all be decided by SCOTUS. My concern is what some overreaching zealot will do to give some citizen proper standing. It’s questionable legislation to be sure, but it’s not prima facie evil like the Patriot Act or SOPA or ordering torture or saying the President has the right to execute citizens without due process.
Bob,Esq:
You need to read those SCOTUS cases again since they clearly accord detainees habeas corpus rights, rights to judicial review of status, and Geneva Convention Rights. A nice overview is found in Temple Professor Mark C. Rahdert article in 2008 found here:
http://www.temple.edu/law/tlawrev/content/issues/80.2/80.2_rahdert.pdf
While conceding certain open questions he agrees those SCOTUS decisions guarantee habeas review, judicial status review,and Geneva Convention protections to detainees. Coupled with Ex Parte Milligan, these decisions reflect the Court’s deference to Congressional checks on the Executive in time of war, but also show a willingness to preserve some bedrock principles of due process and examination of Executive findings even during these emergencies.
Rahdert also reflects the consensus view that impingements on the right of habeas corpus by Congress must be explicit to pass constitutional muster.
“principles of habeas corpus jurisdiction recognize that there are
limits on Congress’s power to withdraw the core functions of habeas corpus from the courts, and the Court’s cases occasionally go to great lengths of statutory construction in order to avoid concluding that habeas corpus jurisdiction was suspended.171 Protection of habeas corpus jurisdiction is critically important, because without it there may be no opportunity for the double check that is necessary to limit executive emergency power. As the Court recognized in Rasul, habeas challenges to the government’s authority to detain alleged enemies of the state lie close to the core purposes of habeas corpus jurisdiction.172 Thus, at a minimum, any withdrawal of habeas jurisdiction by Congress must be unambiguously explicit. Arguably it should also be tied to documented findings
that the constitutionally prescribed circumstances for suspension of habeas
corpus exist.173:” (p. 478)
Look, you can assert that Posse Comitatus has been repealed by this Act of Congress. Hell, you can assert that the entire Constitution along with its amendments has been repealed by the Bill as some commentators do but that is not within the four corners of the Bill’s language either. Finally, you can cherry pick the language which provides for indefinite detention but how do you then avoid the plain language saying the current body of law is not affected? How do disregard the plain language of the signing statement of the President interpreting the legislation precisely as I’ve said? How do you disregard the plain language of the BIll’s author interpreting the Bill just as I ‘ve said. How do you disregard the DOJ summary interpreting the Bill just as I’ve said? Finally, how do you square these notions of imminent doom coming from a Democratic President, a Democratic Senator, and a Justice Department headed by a Democrat? To accept your view means the entire government from Bush Republicans to Obama Democrats are in direct conspiracy to enslave the American public? Is that really your position? That is the logical extension of the rhetoric against this Bill. And you say I avoid the argument.
These issues will not be decided by you or me or by talking heads on cable TV. They will be decided by SCOTUS after hearing reasoned debate from learned people. That’s how we do it in democracy, not with petitions or inflammatory rhetoric, or castigating blog comments.
To clarify, I meant too many wildly improbable outcomes if the majority ruled, or the government was actually “by the people, for the people.”
@angryman: t is unlikely that anyone will be able to provide evidence to absolutely prove that there is a Conspiracy of Evil or otherwise.
Absolute proof isn’t necessary in life or law, and the conspiracy does not even have to be illegal. The proof is in the results; if a conspiracy did not exist there would be very few laws on the books that some majority of people did not agree with (I say “some” majority, because it can be a different majority of people for each law, it would not always be the same set of people in the majority). Policies, wars, expenses, tax breaks and departments that some majority opposed would end. Laws that favor, support or divert money to single-digit percentages of the population would never pass. Contracts that overpaid private industry by millions or billions of dollars would never be written, much less signed.
I think it is fair to say we do not live in that world. The Bush tax cuts for the rich have been opposed by the majority for quite a long time. Both a Public Option and the stronger Medicare for All was supported by votor majorities. Criminal investigation and punishment of bank executives had majority approval (and probably still does).
The conspiracy exists; we do evil, we support evil, and our laws and taxes overwhelmingly favor corporations, the wealthy, celebrities and politicians themselves. We do not need absolute proof, we have the statistical proof of far too many wildly improbable outcomes.
The electorate functions within a given universe erected and maintained, through “politics”, by and in a manner to benefit those already in control.
A conspiracy, large and small.
The problem: how to change a universe that is self sustaining without destroying it’s essential fabric, the people.
Mespo: “I didn’t evade JT’s arguments. I rejected them as unsupported by the plain language of the BIll.”
You mean the plain language of the 1021 that provides for the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial without any exemption for American citizens? That plain language?
Mespo: “JT dismissed the Bill’s language guaranteeing the status quo in terms of the current legal protections for detainees and I disagreed that a court considering the constitutionality of the legislation would so easily do so or would backtrack reading the Bill as a legislative mandate to do so.”
But the court would accept all the informal fallacies you offered in support of that claim over the statutory analysis and legislative history offered by JT above? And what of the authorities you cited?
Let’s review:
Mespo: “I have discussed these on other threads but SCOTUS decisions in Hamdi, Hamdan, Rasul, and the Posses Comitatus Act must be a part of any discussion about the current state of detainee protections specifically guaranteed by Sec. [1021]. To ignore these protections currently prohibiting indefinite detention without judicial review of status and providing both habeas and Geneva Convention rights to detainee – -citizen and otherwise – seems more alarmist than enlightening”
Hamdi: It appears to me that citing Hamdi begs the question as to whether this act of congress disposes of the habeas protection provided in Hamdi; as described by JT above. Scalia would say the issue is whether congress effectively codified the suspension of habeas with 1021. Nonetheless, good luck getting that issue into court if the president, by whatever whim or caprice, has declared a defendant U.S. Citizen to be an ally of al Qaeda.
Hamdan: Didn’t that deal with the legality of military commissions under the law of war and Geneva; not the legality of detention (without charge) until the end of “war?” I’d say that bears little to no relevance to the objections JT has raised against NDAA 1021
Rasul: Wasn’t this a strictly jurisdiction case; i.e. power of U.S. courts to entertain habeas petitions from Guantanamo Bay. And the relevance of this case to the objections being raised against NDAA 1021 is what?
Posse Comitatus: Levin’s assertion that Posse Comitatus remains ‘unchanged’ is not only irrelevant but misleading. He is correct in that the NDAA did not alter or amend Posse Comitatus; thus leaving it ‘unchanged.’ It is misleading, however, since NDAA 1021 is “an act of congress.”
And Posse Comitatus says what?
“From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress”
Furthermore, Posse Comitatus only applies to the Navy and Marines by way of a DOD Directive, which can be voided by the Executive at any time, and currently does not apply to the U.S. Coast Guard. But who’s counting?
Mespo: “JT thought the senators supporting the Bill were guilty of nonfeasance of their duties and I reject that argument as unsupported by the record of genuine debate over the measure and its potential excesses.”
JT cited actual portions of transcripts. What did you rely on? Further, how did you counter his arguments?
Mespo: “JT dismisses Levin’s explanation of the intent and operation of the Bill, and I accept it since there is no evidence to the contrary I can see, merely conjecture and criticism from those who find it not to their liking.”
Again, when I say you evaded JT’s arguments, I mean that he made claims and offered SPECIFIC SUPPORT FOR THOSE CLAIMS which you did not address at all. Don’t tell me his table/argument isn’t supported when you made no attempt to knock out a single leg.
Mespo: “Levin’s position is a reasonable one and, contrary to your assertions, he is the most knowledgeable person in the country on matters of national security.”
Yeah, he’s got Posse Comitatus down; doesn’t he?
Mespo: “I would think his personal credibility would add to that expertise but since you want to make that “illogical”
No, my problem, nay, one of my problems, was with your appealing to his credentials in lieu of making a valid argument. Let’s be clear.
“So there is no “Evidence” of a Conspiracy. But when so many of similar interest; act in similar ways detrimental to the nation and people; and so many who will not benefit support these groups in the name of Religion or National pride or Fear of Socialism; it seems clear that what may not be proven is indeed true.”
AMS,
Amen brother we’re on the same page. My particular caveat though is this. All “Ism’s” are the bullshit used to distract people from the reality of human existence. We are like the society among the “Great Apes”. The Alpha male gets his choice of the “goodies” including females and what’s left flows down from a spire (1%), on top of a pyramid that contains the other 99%. With all the supposed sophistication of modernity, human society still is set up like that of our genetic relatives. Politics is the vehicle used to distract us from the fact that what really is going on is a battle about who gets to be on top.
Seen from this perspective it is all about ego to those who want power and to bask in the glory of it. In some societies, N.Korea and Syria for instance, power being the impetus is clear to see. Kim Jung Un and Assad have no political philosophy except to rule. That was the way it was with Kingdoms in the past. Today other national setups, like ours, are more sophisticated in presentation and use “Ism’s” to hide the fact they are really all about money and power. The saving grace of a society like ours, or Great Britain, is perhaps that by muddying the structure and not allowing one ruling potentate, with an aristocracy in tow, many plutocrats want to run the show. So while they sometimes coalesce in screwing us, at the same time they keep fighting each other to get to the top of the heap. It is this division of desires that has kept things from a total return to Feudalism of the Corporate variety.
So I do believe in conspiracies, like the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK,
I don’t have any real idea of which Alpha Male faction(s) did the deeds.
And that, Bubba, is exactly how it’s done … love from IMMAC
Mike,
“It’s not about Levin being cuddily, it about his being brainwashed, by the very people he is being briefed by.”
This is an excellent comment Mike. Something that most people do not understand is the amount of influence and control, a serving elected official’s advisors and assistants have over his ability to obtain correct data; his public image; and as part of that, his statements made to the public.
Washington (for example) could not operate if everyone was new every few years. there is an established group of “Washington Insiders”; Administrative proffesionals who do the day to day decision making and action taking. The politician at the head is responsible primarily for; yep; you guessed it; Politics.
The CIA is a prime example and one whose structure has been widely publicised over the past fifty years or so. The Director of the CIA is a political appointee. he often has only limited knowledge of the Agency’s procedures and actions as he only knows what the Congress and public have been told. Not necessarily false imformation but not Comprehensive either. His job is a political one and to oversee the actions and policies of the Agency.
The real nuts and bolts stuff. the Analysis of events; planning of operations; monitoring data; and all the rest are handled by lower level staff supervised by the Assistant Directiors who are not appointed, but have typically risen through the ranks of the Agency and are extremely knowledgeable and therefore are the Directors “Go To” guys for advice.
So who runs the CIA? Not the politicians and neither do they control Washington and Congress in the same way.
Tony C,
“I think you guys dismiss the possibility of evil conspiracy far too readily.
Money is an acid that dissolves the principles of almost anybody, and the dumb truth is that we select our politicians primarily on personality, party line, and money, and those have nothing to do with their principles………………………………………………….”
I agree with everything you say. Much of the Evidence for The New World order Conspiracy is here on this site if we are paying attention. Looking at your comment and Mike’s comment is again reinforcing my repeated believe and plea for everyone to open their eyes to the proof.
Now just to contradict myself: It is unlikely that anyone will be able to provide evidence to absolutely prove that there is a Conspiracy of Evil or otherwise. Very difficult to prove Conspiracy; especially if it is your purpose in life to hide your conspiracy and the consequences of leaking proof might be; shall we say severe.
What we must do is look at the ways we group people in our society i.e. Republican; Democrat; 1%; 99%; Religiously Mainstream, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Atheist; Right-Wing; Left-Wing; Liberal; Conservative; Black; White; Hispanic; Asian; Native American etc.
Now if we examine the actions of these different groupings; what we discover is that. The groups who have members in common; also tend to act in the same ways. So a person who is a membner of the Liberal group and the 99% will find that both groups take similar stances on many issues and act in similar ways when pressed to the wall.
So; when we place together those groups that are allied with the 1% by philosophy or greed; we discover that they are supporting the same laws and restraints; using their money in the same way to a lessor or greater extent depending on the level of wealth and power. We also find that these laws and policies have been slowly eroding our Constitutional rights and that the speed is increasing. They have initiated wars in countries for no good reason and have masked this by presenting propaganda to justify our involvement by siting unattainable goals and false agendas.
They have falsely kept our wages low and allowed prices to rise beyong our reach and have made survival beyond the reach of many.
They have used Tax breaks; Non-taxable corporations; Trust Funds; Tax loopholes; and many investment products designed specifically to help them avoid paying taxes
They have moved millions of American jobs overseas thereby increasing the level of despeation for jobs and depriving American workers of the ability to make a living wage who before were able to do so.
They have convinced millions of Americans to support and defend their actions even though they personally have or will benefit from them personally based on other issues such as Patriotism; Gun Ownership; the fear their money will be taken and spread out to less fortunate people; Religion (oh that’s a big one); etc.
So there is no “Evidence” of a Conspiracy. But when so many of similar interest; act in similar ways detrimental to the nation and people; and so many who will not benefit support these groups in the name of Religion or National pride or Fear of Socialism; it seems clear that what may not be proven is indeed true.
If we fail to act on this belief; if we wait for the proof; it will be too late. We must act on the assumption that the above mentioned “Coincidences” are not. That they are indeed the only “Proof” we will get of this most Deadly Conspiracy.
If by some unimaginable chance; we are wrong and it is all just Coincidence; we will have at least done what we should do and stopped the individual actions.
Better Safe Than Sorry
Mike,
“I come not to praise these policies but to bury them. To stop this crap you have to understand why supposedly good men like Levin would vote for it in the first place. By demonizing him people miss the point of what is going on. I think we can agree that WWII was perhaps the most justifiable war in history. However, what it did was school the Corporatists who ran this country. It schooled them by showing how much money……………………..”
Absolutely correct. This just adds to the “evidence” for a Serious conspiracy.
When you look at how the MIC feeds the politicians and the politicians feed the MIC. When you consider how America and Americans have become so willing to stick our nose and our military in wherever we feel like for whatever sad reason; including the ridiculous claim that a Communist victory in Viet-Nam would somehow threaten America. Please. Look at how gulible we have become as a people. But history shows it is not the first time. Hitler had to go into Czekoslovakia to rescue German nationals being mistreated. False. Hitler attacked Poland because the Poles crossed the border and killed Germans. False. We attacked Iraq because there was evidence of WMD. False We attacked Afganistan to clear out Alqueda and get rid of the Taliban because of their many human rights abuses and support of Alqeda. False (no one believes we can drive out the Taliban or defeat them any more than we did or could defeat the North Vietnamese and Viet-Cong).
I never felt personally threatened by a Russian in my life. I never believed that the Russian people wanted war with America and as I got older it became pretty clear that the leaders didn’t either. I now see how that fits with the rest of the “evidence” of a Conspiracy.
Prof.
“Thankfully are we not facing the type of horror faced by Niemöller, but the logic is the same: I do not need to object unless the government denies me a right.”
Yet professor. Not facing that type of horror Yet. I think we are not far from it. The climb to the top is slow but once you tilt over the top the slippery slope to just that sort of horror is fast; almost imperceptably fast.
I think the comments I have mentioned make a good argument for just that situation approaching with vigor.
Tony C. cites ‘conspiracy’ and essentially talks about the corrupting effects of money and influence. Upthread I suggested the ‘payoffs’ for being a good company man which conditions the whole Congressional environment. Mike S describes virtual brainwashing, which is conditioned by being softened up to be a ready and willing subjects to do the MIC/corporatist bidding.
All part of the same picture, regardless of what we call it.
Someone mentioned the “big boogeyman” scare that might be cementing Obama, and the Congresscritters in line.
All these are easy decisions for the pols; there is not much of a lobby for civil liberties of a strength to counter the false assumptions and information with which we are flooded. And, in m view, there is less opposition all the time.