Conservatives for Privacy, Where is the Left?

Last week, the  New York Times wrote about privacy concerns because the Federal Bureau of Investigations relaxed their standards after September 11th, 2001.  What the reporter did not mention was that many conservative, religious and libertarian groups spoke up when the post 9/11 guidelines were adopted.  We voiced our concern that the FBI under the new guidelines might stifle lawful dissent and chill religious expression.  

At the time I was working for Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation.  Our Coalition for Constitutional Liberties put out a coalition letter to the House Judiciary Committee urging a more directed focus on accurate intelligence gathering. 

I reiterated my arguments in a commentary published in The Washington Times.  As I pointed out there, the guidelines under President Ronald Reagan were prefaced with this directive, "Preliminary inquiries and investigations governed by these guidelines are conducted for the purpose of preventing, detecting, or prosecuting violations of federal law. They shall be conducted with as little intrusion into the privacy of individuals as the needs of the situation permit." Unfortunately, that language was struck after 9/11.

I was one of the privacy leaders at the time that briefed House Judiciary Committee staffers on our concerns and thoughts regarding the guidelines changes.  In that briefing, I recommended our previous work on the Task Force for Information Exchange and Financial Privacy.  

Many conservative, libertarian and religious groups stood up for privacy and constitutional liberties with President Bush.  With that in mind, I hope our friends on the left will not automatically give the current administration the benefit of the doubt -- institutional interests often trump partisan pretense.  

The best way to keep us safe and free is eternal vigilance -- no matter which party is in office.  Certainly the current administration should do at least as good a job as Reagan did protecting our privacy and other constitutional liberties.  So, let's hope our friends on the left stand up now when they're needed!

 

Follow J. Bradley Jansen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bradleyjansen

Comments

[J. Bradley Jansen - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm quite disappointed with the quality of the comments.

One, I never mentioned party or Republican. I don't see privacy as a partisan issue. Regarding Weyrich: "After the 9/11 attacks, Weyrich opposed many of the policies pushed by neoconservatives and other hardliners in and out of the Bush administration, including the invasion of Iraq." http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Weyrich_Paul

and his own words written on 9/11 itself:
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0901/0901wtc1.htm

Two, not one comment has even referenced the topic: FBI guidelines and government surveillance. So it's okay for Obama to spy on us without cause?

Three, the facts are the facts: we were out there actively and publicly calling for defense of privacy on FBI guidelines changes in the aftermath of 9/11 with a Republican president and Congress. Look at the links.

My question stands: where are the coalitions on the left now calling for the same protections?

[JohnFromCensornati]

"I'm quite disappointed with the quality of the comments."

I've noticed that some bloggers don't allow comments. That's always an option.

"So it's okay for Obama to spy on us without cause?"

Nobody said that but you.

"the facts are the facts"

I agree. "Conservatives" gave us the PATRIOT Act.

"where are the coalitions on the left now calling for the same protections"

See Ralph Nader.

[J. Bradley Jansen - Huffpost Blogger]

The FBI guidelines weren't part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Many Ds had a horrible record there (especially Kerry and Sarbanes actively trying to make it worse). Unfortunately, most of it was long-held bureaucratic wish lists that had little to do with party (most was stuff Clinton tried and failed to get).

Which is my main point, we need to all work together and be vigilant no matter the party in power. The deafening silence on Obama's FBI guidance indicated acceptance--so yeah, I'm saying it--why remain silent which says it's okay for Obama to spy on us without cause?

Nader is great (and got my vote in 2004), but he's not a coalition.

[HeevenSteven]

You're preaching to the choir here on this stuff, we were against it before anyone was for it, and we still are.

What we 'libruls' would like to see from conservatives is some consistency. They're always for their principles until they're not--like Weyrich: he's not interested in anyone's sexual or reproductive privacy, and he'd like to enact laws to enforce his religious beliefs; but he doesn't want HIS privacy or HIS religious freedom tampered with.

As you know, the the Democrats in congress are complete cowards about the patriot act because they know well that conservatives will bludgeon them in the next election if there's any terrorist action anywhere that might, in their wildest fantasies, have been prevented by doubling Guantanamo.

[angelatc]

Well, I can't argue with that. I'd like to see some consistency in the GOP too.

[LeftRight]

First, there are MILLIONS of us on the left who are still calling for the repeal of the so called USA PATRIOT ACT.

Second, I don't remember hearing ANY conservatives calling for privacy during the "debate" on the act...

And third, as HeevenSteven points out, how about a little consistency? I'm tired of hearing conservatives and Republicans calling for privacy and fiscal restraint now that they're out of power, in spite of the fact that they've demonstrated time and time again that they cannot be trusted with a budget larger than the dog catcher in a TINY town smaller than Wassila, AK......

[J. Bradley Jansen - Huffpost Blogger]

" I don't remember hearing ANY conservatives calling for privacy during the "debate" on the act..."

Then you need to refresh your memory. Look at my testimony linked in the post. Do a search for my name during the debate. We had a large, left-right­-libertari­an coalition called In Defense of Freedom at a Time of Crisis that spoke out loudly:
http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/

Paul Weyrich, Grover Norquist, David Keating, et al., all spoke up--not that it was unanimous. Most of the groups had recent memories of Clinton's abuses fresh in their minds.

And yes, many of us are consistent.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Now that a Democrat is in the White House, conservatives are all for fiscal restraint, too! Listen to them clamoring for the end of their two wars.

[minimalist syntax]

I'm sorry about the elections in Maine.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Me too, but I'm not surprised. It's time for the Dems in congress to do the right thing. They won't. That's why I'm through with them. They don't end "conservative" wars, they don't repeal "conservative" police state laws, they don't regulate "conservative" Wall Street criminals...

[HeevenSteven]

Paul Weyrich for privacy? What a howler!! Anybody who wants to legislate their religious beliefs is NOT interested in privacy.

[tompoe]

Desperation, as another member of the Party of Corporate Welfare seeks absolution at the expense of readers. How many seconds will it take for this jerk to disown capitalism?

[J. Bradley Jansen - Huffpost Blogger]

I have a long record opposing corporate welfare under Clinton and Bush both. I wrote an amendment to zero out funding for title one of the foreign ops bill (export promotion with ExIm Bank, OPIC and TDA) and worked with lots of coalitions on similar issues.

Ignorant people should not be so quick to judge and label--that's just stupid.

Long live (real) capitalism!

[tompoe]

Thanks for your quick response. Didn't take long at all. Your readers should be delighted with your definition of "(real) capitalism", as opposed to the make-believe capitalism behind Paulson's demand for entitlement of Bush's $1 trillion dollar going away present for his cronies on September 19, 2008.

[Arion]

Happily many liberal voices agree and are actively working to protect the public. See Jane Hamsher, Marcy Wheeler et. al.

[J. Bradley Jansen - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks, I'll take a look at them. I'm still disappointed that many (lefty) groups who were with us on the FBI guidelines changes in 2002 are AWOL now.

[greymen]

What malarkey, that the repugnants are FOR privacy!!!! What a laugh! They're kicking people out left and right over their NEED to interfere in everyone's private decisions! Read: the end-of-life/death panel/Schiavo interferences; their OBSESSION with whom we marry, sleep with, and what our sexual orientation is/who we are; women's choice.

HARDLY! do they promote privacy - UNLESS IT SUITS THEIR OWN BS AGENDA.

[J. Bradley Jansen - Huffpost Blogger]

Greymen, my record is there and public--along with the other groups who signed on. Facts are facts. The NYTs article was on the FBI guidelines that changed after 9/11 and again with Obama. Try to open your mind and move past your prejudices and stereotypes.