CATO vs. Wingnut on Warrantless Surveillance

Anyone who has seen David Rivkin in action knows that he is a Bush apologist extraordinaire. Robert Levy of the CATO Institute I am not familiar with. They debated Bush's shredding of the Constitution. Now, in my view, Levy fumbles a couple of questions and answers, but even then, Rivkin is routed.

I present it here for your consideration. And also to demonstrate how extreme Bush's actions are and what lackeys the "conservative" movement is with regard to Bush. Their argument is Bush did it, must be ok.

Update [2005-12-27 16:18:30 by Armando]: The funny part is Joshua Adler of The Corner, who linked to the debate, writes:

The Federalist Society has posted the beginning of an exchange between frequent NRO contributor David Rivkin and the Cato Institute's Robert Levy on the domestic surveillance controversy. It's an interesting back and forth, and the FedSoc promises there is more to come. Incidentally, this sort of exchange is one of the reasons I've been so involved with the Federalist Society over the years -- ever since attending portions of a FedSoc conference at the Yale Law School when I was an undergrad. Both Rivkin and Levy are FedSoc regulars, and yet they have profound disagreements over the Bush Administration's activities.

but he links to folks "critiquing" me - even though Levy holds my views. That is the ultimate in an ad hominem approach to argument. Levy is a "great guy" (read Republican) so his argument is to be treated with respect. I make the same argument and Adler is "not impressed." Frankly, a good argument is a good argument, and a bad one is a bad one, whoever it comes from. For instance, from Orin Kerr, or Cass Sunstein.

•  Cato is not a Bush apologist

  fortunately they are one of the limited few on the right who have not followed lockstep with the admin.

  Especially much of their foreign policy stance is usually reality-based.

  by SwingVoter on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:09:17 PM PDT

  •  CATO

    is more Libertarian than Republican.  They side with Bush and the Repubs on any business/tax policies of note, but when it comes to the social issues (privacy being a big one) they come down against government intrusion.

    by GTPinNJ on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:28:52 PM PDT

  •  But...

    apparently their Fellows were for sale to the Republican's lobbyists.

    by pshaw on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:57:18 PM PDT

    •  Well, one (that we know of)

      But Doug Bandow's malfeasance nonwithstanding, CATO does do a lot of good work (and a fair amount of bad work too).

      I must say though, as someone straddling the Left/Libertarian divide, that CATO and other Libertarian groups seem perfectly suited to be our allies right now.  If you check out the forums at Hit & Run or any other truly Libertarian site (by which I mean ignore Instapundit), you'll see a level of contempt for the Bush administration that nearly rivals what you'll see here.

      by Jay Elias on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 02:31:30 PM PDT

•  David Rivkin and Lee Casey

  These guys have been writing pro-administration op-eds going back to the days immediately after 9/11.

  For those keeping score at home, Rivkin and Casey are partners in the Washington, DC office of Baker & Hostetler LLP. They served in a variety of positions in the Reagan and Bush-41 Administrations, including the White House Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice.  Rivkin is also an Associate Fellow of The Nixon Center. Yes, the Nixon Center.
  

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:11:53 PM PDT

  •  I did a fellowship at the Nixon Center.

    I learned how to break into hotels.  Cover it up later.  Commit perjury.  They discontinued the course on the use of audio tape a few years before I got there.  They taught a lot of really cool shit which I intend to use to take over the world someday.

    by beagleandtabby on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:19:14 PM PDT

    •  Do you have

      an enemies list?

      by GTPinNJ on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:38:04 PM PDT

      •  I do now!

        by beagleandtabby on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:56:26 PM PDT

•  C'mon...

  Maube he's just not impressed with you, personally.

  Maybe your shoes weren't shined or your shirt was untucked or your hair was mussed.  Or it was simply the fact that you're a Cuban.

  I don't know.

  Just cut the guy some slack, would ya'?

  by Bob Johnson on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:22:13 PM PDT

  •  Could be . . .

    by Armando on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:23:39 PM PDT

•  Maybe

  he just doesn't love you the way we do Armando.  Once he gets to know you I'm sure he'll have warm and fuzzy feelings about you.  Seriously, we all know you as the most polite, even handed, open minded, soft spoken and gentile person here.

  by demkat620 on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:31:10 PM PDT

  •  Gentile=genteel

    sorry

    by demkat620 on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:32:04 PM PDT

    •  Gentile too

      Doubt Adler cares about that.

      by Armando on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:35:29 PM PDT

  •  Manchurian Blogger

    Yep.

    by Armando on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:34:59 PM PDT

•  Rivkin reminds me of that John Candy scene in

  Uncle Buck. The one when he visits the principal, gives her the bus fare. Classic Candy.

  by Tirge Caps on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:42:14 PM PDT

•  From Cong. Ron Paul

  sent an inquiry asking about the possibility he'd sponsor a Resolution to Impeach over the wiretaps. No direct answer, instead got his new weekly column
  

  ...Of course most governments, including our own, cannot resist the temptation to spy on their citizens when it suits government purposes. But America is supposed to be different. We have a mechanism called the Constitution that is supposed to place limits on the power of the federal government. Why does the Constitution have an enumerated powers clause, if the government can do things wildly beyond those powers-- such as establish a domestic spying program? Why have a 4th Amendment, if it does not prohibit government from eavesdropping on phone calls without telling anyone?

  ...The administration assures us that domestic surveillance is done to protect us. But the crucial point is this:  Government assurances are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden must always be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers. Conservatives who support the Bush administration should remember that powers we give government today will not go away when future administrations take office.

  Some Senators last week complained that the Patriot Act is misunderstood. But it's not the American public's fault nobody knows exactly what the Patriot Act does. The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress in a reasonable time before it was voted on- which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it.   Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. It is precisely because we cannot predict how the Patriot Act will be interpreted and used in future decades that we should question it today.

  by ben masel on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:49:32 PM PDT

•  Figures

  CATO and other libertarian groups prefr fascism over democracy any day. Best to ignore them and toss Ayn Rand novels to keep those idiots busy.

  by Tux on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 03:15:23 PM PDT

  •  You didn't bother to read the pdf.

    Levy, the Cato guy, comes out against the Bush wiretapping. Your knee doesn't jerk anymore, it's locked in place.

    by ben masel on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 04:03:10 PM PDT

•  Figures

  CATO and other libertarian groups prefr fascism over democracy any day. Best to ignore them and toss Ayn Rand novels to keep those idiots busy.

  by Tux on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 03:15:25 PM PDT

•  Wasn't levy Nixon's Atty Gen?

  Wrong Levy? Wrong era?

  by Percheronwoman on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 06:08:56 PM PDT

  •  That was Edward Levy, he was Ford's AG.

    Arguably the best ever from a Civil Liberties standpoint.

    by ben masel on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 07:03:56 PM PDT