NationStates Jolt Archive


This Guy Hit the Nail on the Head

Delator
20-01-2006, 08:23
This is a column from my local newspaper. It pretty much sums up my thoughts on Bush's NSA program and the War on Terror™ in general. Feel free to comment.

link provided below

---

Loss of Liberty is Terrorists' Gain

Whatever rights democratic governments have, they have them as a gift from their people.

Our country's founders knew all too well about governmental abuses of its citizens. As a result, our founders demanded that special provisions that described the rights American citizens would keep unabridged by the government be added to our Constitution — the Bill of Rights.

The Fourth Amendment states that the people are to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Before the government can conduct a search or seizure, a judge must first decide that probable cause exists for issuing a warrant allowing the seizure. It has long been held that the Fourth Amendment protects our privacy during telephone calls and other private communications.

The requirement to obtain warrants has been an integral part of our government's unique system of checks and balances.

In 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted. It gave the executive branch a separate legal regime for the gathering of foreign intelligence, exempting the government from traditional Fourth Amendment requirements of a showing of probable cause of a crime and its connection to the subject of the investigation.

Warrants from judges were still required, but upon a lesser showing of potential wrongdoing. In its 22-year history, the secret FISA court has rejected less than 7 warrant applications in more than 13,000 requests.

Last month, the New York Times said that President Bush has repeatedly, secretly and illegally authorized the National Security Agency to spy on U.S. citizens without oversight by our judiciary since 2002.

Contrast that with Bush's statement on July 14, 2004 in Fond du Lac, where he said: "A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order."

The first question is: Why the lies, Mr. President? Would the terrorists somehow benefit from knowing our law enforcement was secretly operating in a lawless fashion, ignoring the legal requirement for judicial oversight of their activities?

Bush asserts that because we are "at war," he has the power to do whatever he claims is necessary to protect the country, regardless of our laws and Constitution.

Now that can't really be true, can it? Oh, yes it can — and it gets even worse.

Go back a month and remember when the Bush Administration was telling the world that we don't torture people (a lie) while, at the same time, Dick Cheney was on the Hill, personally lobbying against Sen. John McCain's amendment that would have clearly banned our use of torture.

Bush was so adamantly opposed to a ban on torture that he threatened to use his very first veto to block it from becoming law.

However, Bush was forced to sign the bill into law only when it became clear that there was such overwhelming support for the torture ban that his threatened veto would be overridden.

During Christmas time, however, the White House issued a "signing statement," an official document that describes the president's interpretation of the bill. A senior administration official described Bush's statement as "reserving the right" to ignore the law banning torture in "special situations" when the president thought national security might be involved.

The new rule is that there are no rules and the president gets to do whatever he wants. A ruler who gets to do whatever he wants! That doesn't sound like a democracy or a country based on the rule of law. It sounds just like just a dictatorship.

But of course, we're at war, so the president gets to do what he wants during this "special time," right? But who are we at war with again? Iraq? Didn't we beat them quite a while ago? The terrorists? Maybe, but if that's the "war" that gives a president the power to ignore federal law and the Constitution, when will we win (end) that war?

When will the last terrorist be killed, and how will we know? And then how do we assure ourselves that new terrorists never again develop (is their condition genetic)?

Many questions, but no answers as to when the United States will return to the rule of law and Americans regain their stolen rights that so many past brave patriots have sacrificed their lives for us to have.

Yes, thousands of brave Americans died rather than allow their inalienable rights to be taken from them. Where do we find the bravery that steeled their hearts and flamed their courage? Where has our courage gone? Running for the supposed safety offered by our fearless leader?

Look deep, America. We're the home of the brave because we're not afraid to fight and die for our ideals. We outlawed torture because we don't need torture and because we abhor its very notion. We're the home of the brave not because we torture our captives, but because we have the moral courage to say that torture is always wrong.

We're the land of the free because we hold our freedoms dear, not because we readily give them up in times of trouble. We don't need to give any more of our rights to our government because we gave it all it needed more than 200 years ago, when the world was filled with just as many tyrants and those who would wish us harm as there are today.

Bush shouted that terrorists hate us because of our great freedoms; then in the next breath, he whispered that he must take those freedoms away to protect us from the terrorists. Think about that.

That means the terrorists won. Bush just unwittingly admitted defeat, a defeat rendered as a result of his own mendacious and ill-conceived handiwork.

The battlefield for our survival as a free people will now be in Congress. May its members screw their courage to the floor and do what must be done to bring our government back into the balance that has keep it vital for more than two centuries.

God help us all if they don't.

---

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060119/APC06/601190616/1036/APCopinion
The Nazz
20-01-2006, 08:32
I really don't understand why people support Bush on this--even the hardcore folks ought to realize that the chances of a permanent Republican presidency, barring outright fraud, are somewhere south of none, and that would mean that these ridiculous powers they think Bush ought to be able derogate himself would devolve on that Democratic president. I am talking about the real wingnuttia here, but I have to ask: Do they really want a Democratic president to have the same ability to spy on them?

Or do they even think about it?
Fass
20-01-2006, 08:36
I really don't understand why people support Bush on this--even the hardcore folks ought to realize that the chances of a permanent Republican presidency, barring outright fraud, are somewhere south of none, and that would mean that these ridiculous powers they think Bush ought to be able derogate himself would devolve on that Democratic president. I am talking about the real wingnuttia here, but I have to ask: Do they really want a Democratic president to have the same ability to spy on them?

Or do they even think about it?

See, they secretly hope that this will lead to a right-wing hegemony that this will be used to cement. Once you're sitting in that chair, you can use it to keep others out.
The Nazz
20-01-2006, 08:40
See, they secretly hope that this will lead to a right-wing hegemony that this will be used to cement. Once you're sitting in that chair, you can use it to keep others out.
Yeah, I know that's what they're hoping for, but again, barring wholescale fraud, they'll never get it. I guess I'm asking a bit much to expect them to actually think long-term.
Fass
20-01-2006, 08:43
Yeah, I know that's what they're hoping for, but again, barring wholescale fraud, they'll never get it. I guess I'm asking a bit much to expect them to actually think long-term.

You were talking about the wingnuttia. They're not exactly known for thinking longterm or for themselves.
Dragons with Guns
20-01-2006, 08:46
I'm suprised the wiretapping has not sparked more outrage.
The Nazz
20-01-2006, 08:48
I'm suprised the wiretapping has not sparked more outrage.
Well, when you look at polls that address the warrantless nature of the wiretapping, you get significant majorities opposed to it. Even the polls with the bullshit questions are only getting roughly 50% favor.
Forfania Gottesleugner
20-01-2006, 08:55
Yeah, I know that's what they're hoping for, but again, barring wholescale fraud, they'll never get it. I guess I'm asking a bit much to expect them to actually think long-term.

That statement opitomizes everything that is wrong with this country. Too many people sit around thinking things can't go really wrong in this country so it isn't that important to make a really big deal about things. Our president has committed blatantly impeachable crimes and then commented that he should have the right to do them so it doesn't matter. The sad part is that nothing will happen to him as a consequence. The extremes always work harder than the moderates so yes it is definately possible presidents like Bush could erode everything we stand for and eventually change the entire system of government. Then it will be too late.

I'm not saying I believe it is definate that such changes will take place or even that it is highly possible. What I do know is that there are huge money machines and people who actually vote behind them who are all for a new right wing government, some even for a theocracy. Think about that as even a possibility and realize how scary it actually is.

Wholescale fruad? Open your eyes it is how Washington works.
Dragons with Guns
20-01-2006, 08:59
Well, when you look at polls that address the warrantless nature of the wiretapping, you get significant majorities opposed to it. Even the polls with the bullshit questions are only getting roughly 50% favor.

I was thinking in terms of trust. If Iraq swayed many to distrust the President surely illegal wiretapping should sway even more. If no one trusts the President his approval ratings should absolutely plummet.

I don't know. Maybe just the people I am talking with on a regular basis are not raining fire and brimstone, hence the misperception.
The Black Forrest
20-01-2006, 08:59
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin
The Nazz
20-01-2006, 09:04
I was thinking in terms of trust. If Iraq swayed many to distrust the President surely illegal wiretapping should sway even more. If no one trusts the President his approval ratings should absolutely plummet.

I don't know. Maybe just the people I am talking with on a regular basis are not raining fire and brimstone, hence the misperception.
Well, his approval ratings as of last week were back at the 40% range, and they've never gotten lower than the mid-30's, so I imagine there's a hard core group who will never leave Bush unless they feel they've been personally betrayed--say for instance if he were to appoint Al Sharpton to the Supreme Court.
Plasteek
20-01-2006, 09:17
The idea of complete fraud isn't that far fetched... I mean how is it that he got elected the first time... oh thats right... good ole borther Jeb down in Florida... YEE HAW
The Nazz
20-01-2006, 09:20
The idea of complete fraud isn't that far fetched... I mean how is it that he got elected the first time... oh thats right... good ole borther Jeb down in Florida... YEE HAW
Well, that's standard issue election fraud. What nags at me is the problem of black box voting--that's the kind of wholesale fraud I'm talking about.
Free Soviets
20-01-2006, 09:27
Even the polls with the bullshit questions are only getting roughly 50% favor.

which is actually surprising. if i didn't know the context for them, i might have answered 'yes' to a few of the particularly bullshity ones.
The Nazz
20-01-2006, 09:29
which is actually surprising. if i didn't know the context for them, i might have answered 'yes' to a few of the particularly bullshity ones.
Yeah--it's like Robert McNamara said. You don't answer the question you're asked, you answer the question you wish had been asked.