AN OPEN REPLY TO GREG, A READER
Greg, you are obviously a Bush supporter and as such you resent the criticism visited upon him by the co-writers of this blog and our blogging friends and readers. It is not only your privilege but your right to support whom you wish and to voice your opinions. We will not censor you here, as this blog is for discussing issues confronting our nation today, and both pro and con voices will be heard. Here we respect the rights of all citizens, even those who disagree with us, as long as they remain civil.
Respecting rights of the citizens seems to be a bone of contention. The criticism of and objections to Bush's illegal wiretaps hinges on 1) the Law, and 2) the right to privacy and unlawful intrusion by the government.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 "prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authority for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power. Requests are adjudicated by a special eleven member court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."
The necessity of surveilling suspected spies or terrorists was recognized. Also, the necessity of preventing abuse of that surveillance was recognized, as the potential for abuse was very great. So the law was passed. Further recognizing that situations might develope wherein speed was of the essence, the law provided that the President had 72 hours to present a request for a warrant after the fact. The FIS Court is secret, to assure that leaks did not warn the suspects as it would in an regular court of law. There was absolutely no reason for the President to conduct the spying without a warrant. (Set your search engine on "site for information about the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act" and you'll get more information than you care to read).
Possibly three excuses: One, he has been ill- advised by his legal counselors that he can do anything he wants to; two, secrecy is the hallmark of illegal activity, a desire not to be caught; and three, doing it and getting away with it sets a precedent. In simplest terms, setting a precedent lays the groundwork for future acts to be accepted on the grounds it was accepted before. A point that you have so clearly demonstrated by your example of the Democrats did it so it's all right for Bush to do it. One wrong act does not make another wrong act right. One wrong act does not excuse a second wrong. It must be stopped and our government leaders MUST obey the law.
And yes, Greg, it is possible in secret, unauthorized surveillance to spy on political opponents, annoying dissenters, anyone that piques the curiosity of the surveiller. It is foolish to say they would not abuse the surveillance; do you think them so honorable that they would never do that, that they would strictly limit surveillance to terror suspects? Why would you accord such honor to proven scoff laws and criminals - and by breaking the law they have made themselves criminals.
It is a fact that the best of men are only human and subject to yield to temptation at times. To peek into the affairs of a political opponent, or a person whose influence would be beneficial to you, or to pull the fangs of someone annoying you would be a great temptation indeed. And those who might get spied upon, although basically decent men, may have a skeleton or two in their closet that they would do anything to prevent it being made public. It has happened before; an extramarital love affair, a youthful indiscretion with drugs or an out of favor political organization, or --involvement with a corrupt lobbyist. Private information can be an ideal bit of blackmail or leverage to force a person to do your bidding.
If you really want an education in unlawful spying upon the American public, both the elite and the common, just check out the history of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI during his reign.
You object to the comparison of Bush to Hitler. I suggest you search the internet about Hitler's rise to power and his methods used, the rise of fascism, then open your eyes to what is taking place here in America. It is as if the Bush administration is following a blueprint. There is much more but we won't go into the Skull and Bones, Hegallianism, the Illuminati, etc. at this time.
Do you think we do not love America because we criticize what is being done to our great nation? It is BECAUSE we love our country that we object. I have lived in a few foreign countries; my husband has lived in many more and brought back tales of life there. The experiences made me love and appreciate America even more, appreciate our freedoms, our rights, our laws. I would die, if necessary, to defend my country. I am a loyal, devoted American, but neither the administration nor George Bush is America.
You cite terrible judicial wrongs in other nations as if their wrong doing excuses what is happening here. It does not. I know of the unjustness of the laws in some countries, especially Arab countries. As I said, I have lived in foreign countries and it has made me deeply appreciate and respect the laws in our own country and I object when the leaders of this great nation break the law and flaunt their criminal acts. I am not a citizen of those countries; I am a citizen of the United States and it is my responsibility and duty as a citizen to object to evil doing of any kind. If the citizens of those nations of which you speak disapprove of the injustice of their courts, it is THEIR responsibility and duty to object. I cannot imagine the convolutions of thought that leads you to believe that evil done in an Arab nation has a thing to do with the United States.
That is what I say to that.
I would suggest that you access the following url and read it thoroughly.
"Polls Show Many Americans Are Dumber Than Bush"-Paul Craig Roberts, 2/6/06
http://www.rense.com/general69/pollsmanyamericans.htm
Thank you for offering your opinions to Is America Burning.
Respecting rights of the citizens seems to be a bone of contention. The criticism of and objections to Bush's illegal wiretaps hinges on 1) the Law, and 2) the right to privacy and unlawful intrusion by the government.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 "prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authority for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power. Requests are adjudicated by a special eleven member court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."
The necessity of surveilling suspected spies or terrorists was recognized. Also, the necessity of preventing abuse of that surveillance was recognized, as the potential for abuse was very great. So the law was passed. Further recognizing that situations might develope wherein speed was of the essence, the law provided that the President had 72 hours to present a request for a warrant after the fact. The FIS Court is secret, to assure that leaks did not warn the suspects as it would in an regular court of law. There was absolutely no reason for the President to conduct the spying without a warrant. (Set your search engine on "site for information about the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act" and you'll get more information than you care to read).
Possibly three excuses: One, he has been ill- advised by his legal counselors that he can do anything he wants to; two, secrecy is the hallmark of illegal activity, a desire not to be caught; and three, doing it and getting away with it sets a precedent. In simplest terms, setting a precedent lays the groundwork for future acts to be accepted on the grounds it was accepted before. A point that you have so clearly demonstrated by your example of the Democrats did it so it's all right for Bush to do it. One wrong act does not make another wrong act right. One wrong act does not excuse a second wrong. It must be stopped and our government leaders MUST obey the law.
And yes, Greg, it is possible in secret, unauthorized surveillance to spy on political opponents, annoying dissenters, anyone that piques the curiosity of the surveiller. It is foolish to say they would not abuse the surveillance; do you think them so honorable that they would never do that, that they would strictly limit surveillance to terror suspects? Why would you accord such honor to proven scoff laws and criminals - and by breaking the law they have made themselves criminals.
It is a fact that the best of men are only human and subject to yield to temptation at times. To peek into the affairs of a political opponent, or a person whose influence would be beneficial to you, or to pull the fangs of someone annoying you would be a great temptation indeed. And those who might get spied upon, although basically decent men, may have a skeleton or two in their closet that they would do anything to prevent it being made public. It has happened before; an extramarital love affair, a youthful indiscretion with drugs or an out of favor political organization, or --involvement with a corrupt lobbyist. Private information can be an ideal bit of blackmail or leverage to force a person to do your bidding.
If you really want an education in unlawful spying upon the American public, both the elite and the common, just check out the history of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI during his reign.
You object to the comparison of Bush to Hitler. I suggest you search the internet about Hitler's rise to power and his methods used, the rise of fascism, then open your eyes to what is taking place here in America. It is as if the Bush administration is following a blueprint. There is much more but we won't go into the Skull and Bones, Hegallianism, the Illuminati, etc. at this time.
Do you think we do not love America because we criticize what is being done to our great nation? It is BECAUSE we love our country that we object. I have lived in a few foreign countries; my husband has lived in many more and brought back tales of life there. The experiences made me love and appreciate America even more, appreciate our freedoms, our rights, our laws. I would die, if necessary, to defend my country. I am a loyal, devoted American, but neither the administration nor George Bush is America.
You cite terrible judicial wrongs in other nations as if their wrong doing excuses what is happening here. It does not. I know of the unjustness of the laws in some countries, especially Arab countries. As I said, I have lived in foreign countries and it has made me deeply appreciate and respect the laws in our own country and I object when the leaders of this great nation break the law and flaunt their criminal acts. I am not a citizen of those countries; I am a citizen of the United States and it is my responsibility and duty as a citizen to object to evil doing of any kind. If the citizens of those nations of which you speak disapprove of the injustice of their courts, it is THEIR responsibility and duty to object. I cannot imagine the convolutions of thought that leads you to believe that evil done in an Arab nation has a thing to do with the United States.
That is what I say to that.
I would suggest that you access the following url and read it thoroughly.
"Polls Show Many Americans Are Dumber Than Bush"-Paul Craig Roberts, 2/6/06
http://www.rense.com/general69/pollsmanyamericans.htm
Thank you for offering your opinions to Is America Burning.
posted by Anonymous @ 2/10/2006 05:03:00 AM
1 Comments:
At Sunday, February 12, 2006 1:43:00 PM ,
Unknown said...
Gee, what is it that you are missing here, Greg. The act clearly states that this decision was based on "persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power."
Since this is what the law prescribes, it seems clear to me that Bush broke the law by accessing the email, telephone conversations, and web searches of AMERICAN citizens who were not engaged in espionage or terrorism on behalf of a foreign power. If I write an email to my best friend, it has nothing to do with such a thing, and he was accessing that type of information, too. The illegality of his acts should be clear. He wants to subpoena ALL Google searches for a certain time frame, not just the searches of persons of interest. Our constitution guarantees us privacy. THE LAW says we are not to be subjected to such things without due cause. Looking for a needle in the proverbial haystack IS NOT due cause. It's a fishing expedition. His legal people know this; no judge would issue a court order without probable cause. It's not probable cause to say that someone somewhere in America who uses Google might be a terrorist. Of course there probably is someone somewhere who has those affiliations. But unless the administration has a name, an IP address, or a credible, legally obtained written threat, they don't deserve access to ANYONE'S records. That's, of course, why they didn't pursue that avenue. They are just HOPING to turn up something that MIGHT incriminate SOMEBODY so they have someone they can turn into a fall guy. If they had a legal leg to stand on, they would have gone about this business in the normal fashion.
Besides, with the Google issue, just because someone searches for something on the web doesn't mean they are a terrorist. I once did a search to find instructions for an atomic bomb. It wasn't because I wanted to make one. It was because I had read that those kids in Columbine found instructions for making one on the web, and I wanted to see if it was true. I also regularly read Russian political, history and literature sites,many about Lenin and Stalin, but that doesn't make me a Communist. I read the Jerusalem Post online, but I'm not Jewish.
This is a stupid way to try to weed out suspected terrorists. If people are honestly buying into this, then our country has descended to a level of fear and paranoia only perpetrated by the European dictators of the 30s.
I think what you believe, Greg, has absolutely no bearing on what you say. Your fingers must work independently of your brain. For example, you talk about victimizing minorities after Katrina. It was the Republicans who did that. Do you think Bush would have let the city set for seven days without aid if they had a white mayor and if it had been the Garden District where the rich white people live that had been flooded instead of the Ninth Ward? Hardly.
For someone who isn't claiming to be a Republican, you sure to spout their witless rhetoric with the best of them. And, if you aren't a Republican, why are you so against Bush bashing? If you aren't affiliated with anyone, why not call it like you see it? But you have illustrated for me how people in this country can have their heads so far up their rectums that they don't have a clue about what's going on.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home