June 19, 2002

Feeling Blasť About Ashcrof...

Volokh-level of seriousness). But those who pre-emptively ridicule others who are worried right now about the Bill of Rights are performing an insulting disservice.

Posted by at June 19, 2002 12:08 PM
Comments

Conversely, some of the more zealous defenders of their view of the Bill of Rights and American constitutionalism probably need to tone down their rhetoric a bit. Comparing Ashcroft to the Taliban, for example, is probably not helpful to a serious discussion. And serious discussion, as you point out, is a good idea.

I cannot believe I just wrote such a touchy-feely post, given my prior fascination with nasty one-line headline links. Ah well. Times change. :)

Posted by: Kevin Whited at June 19, 2002 02:06 PM

Kevin -- As you know, I've spent a column inch or two these past nine months discussing the counter-productivity of red-faced political hyperbole ... unless, of course, it's really funny.

Posted by: Matt Welch at June 19, 2002 02:39 PM

Matt.. check out the NRO post on who the worst criminal is vis a vis constitutional rights: FDR or Nixon... Church committee was completely on drugs... CIA and FBI need to be more active, not less... next you'll be saying that the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss were innocent! We need to apply treason and war crimes laws a hell of alot more stringently (first up is Jane Fonda for aiding and abetting war crimes in N Vietnam)

Posted by: bugs bunny at June 20, 2002 08:40 PM

"Bugs" -- I prefer debating with humans who stand by their own names, not cartoon characters.

Posted by: Matt Welch at June 21, 2002 12:33 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






'70s. There were many good reasons for the reforms introduced back then on intelligence & law enforcement agencies. If some of those restrictions no longer make sense while obstructing legitimate policing & defense, well, that's worth talking about (preferably, with a Volokh-level of seriousness). But those who pre-emptively ridicule others who are worried right now about the Bill of Rights are performing an insulting disservice.

Posted by at June 19, 2002 12:08 PM
Comments

Conversely, some of the more zealous defenders of their view of the Bill of Rights and American constitutionalism probably need to tone down their rhetoric a bit. Comparing Ashcroft to the Taliban, for example, is probably not helpful to a serious discussion. And serious discussion, as you point out, is a good idea.

I cannot believe I just wrote such a touchy-feely post, given my prior fascination with nasty one-line headline links. Ah well. Times change. :)

Posted by: Kevin Whited at June 19, 2002 02:06 PM

Kevin -- As you know, I've spent a column inch or two these past nine months discussing the counter-productivity of red-faced political hyperbole ... unless, of course, it's really funny.

Posted by: Matt Welch at June 19, 2002 02:39 PM

Matt.. check out the NRO post on who the worst criminal is vis a vis constitutional rights: FDR or Nixon... Church committee was completely on drugs... CIA and FBI need to be more active, not less... next you'll be saying that the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss were innocent! We need to apply treason and war crimes laws a hell of alot more stringently (first up is Jane Fonda for aiding and abetting war crimes in N Vietnam)

Posted by: bugs bunny at June 20, 2002 08:40 PM

"Bugs" -- I prefer debating with humans who stand by their own names, not cartoon characters.

Posted by: Matt Welch at June 21, 2002 12:33 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






= true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> lse { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //-->