Today, as Jim has discussed, the New York Times is finally reporting on a story that it has kept under wraps, in compliance with a request by the Bush Administration, for an entire year. Now we know, from a dozen independent sources within the government, that George W. Bush ordered the National Security Agency to spy on the telephone call of hundreds of Americans without obtaining even secret government search warrants. The spying took place without any of the legally required court supervision whatsoever.
So far, the Republican excuse for this kind of illegal government activity has been that only “bad guys” are the targets of the activities. The problem created by Bush’s shroud of secrecy over government is that we have to take their word for it. We aren’t told the whole truth because that’s classified.
But, even if what the Bush Administration is true, and only nasty criminals have been the targets of spying uncontrolled by court review, does that make it okay? On the contrary, a free country is best defined by the integrity with which it treats the most despised criminal suspects. In the past, our society has demanded that the pursuit of criminals take place within the safeguards guaranteed by the Bill of Rights because our citizens have remembered that, under the right circumstances, anyone can become a criminal suspect.
The United States of America is supposed to be a nation of laws. In such a nation, no one, not even the President, is supposed to have the power to simply declare that the law no longer applies. A President who decides that he no longer needs to follow the requirements of the law is no longer a president, but a dictator.
In the coming days, the United States Senate will reconsider its passage of extending the powers of the Patriot Act. Today’s revelation of extralegal spying ordered by George W. Bush, in addition to the week’s earlier revelations of government spying against dissenters, demonstrates that whenever Bush is given new powers to spy on Americans, he will regard those new powers as a license to spread his spies even farther, out beyond the new frontiers of the law.
Pingback: Bush authorized NSA domestic spying - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity
For a minute there one could think that this was referring to Clinton. Disregarding the rule of law, etc. President Bush does not have the power, nor did he, authorize any tapping beyond the law. Perhaps through the secret court established after 9-11 [remember that?], that liberals do not like anyway, but never-the-less fully legal. Anything, to undermine the President’s success and leadership in fighting this war, is not beyond the partisanship of liberals and Democrats. The recent “Pretty Please” non-harsh treatment of prisoners amendment is a prime example that will ultimately put all Americans at increased risk. for what? To be politically correct? That is entirely unacceptable. The last time the politics intruded on a war, Freedom lost. That certainly can be the same outcome this time too, if we allow it to happen.
Paul, tell you what. I’ll agree not to spurt milk through my nose when I read your posts if you agree to read the news before you write your posts. Go read the news and then try again.
Freedom lost? Huh? When is this paul guy talking about?
Oh! He must be talking about the way that George W. Bush has smashed our freedoms in the name of war and in the interest of promoting the right wing agenda.
I grow so weary of the whiny “Clinton did it too!” screed from people like paul. NewsFlash: Clinton is not in office! Allowing that he were the president today and had pulled this clear violation of law I would be just as angry. What more does George Bush have to do before you can see what a travesty this administration has been? What a pathetic state we have arrived at when American citizens (no doubt good, patriotic, tax-paying, God-fearing folk) condone the government(…For the people by the people?) spying on their follow citizens? paul, these are Soviet tactics, Pinochet, Kim Jung Il and even Baathist behavior. They will start with “other people, ie: Arabs, but how long before even dissent is the focus of their monitoring? Finally would you approve of the government spying on its own citizens if John Kerry or Hillary Clinton were signing the authorizations?
they impeach clinton for lying about a blowjob!
i can only imagine clinton hanging by his balls from the
top of the capitol if he had had the gall to flex his
presidential muscle in the all to common fashion george
bush has exibited time and time again. impeachment is to
good for this guy. where is the international tribunal
that can bring bush and all his cronies to justice?
Paul, during the ’50s and 60′s at the very least it was the custom of the various enforcement/intelligence outfits both military or civil, to take down license numbers of cars and even photos of people who happened to be in a certainradius of something which was deemed subversive. If you were in the military or civil service and managed to get in the middle of something like this, your career was as good as over unless someone like my father cared enough to call you in, speak to you, and actually find out thatwhat you were doing there: possibly just visiting a relative, etc. Most of the agents simply didn’t do this, they just lumped you as a subversive risk, and bye-bye any advancement, and any security clearance or hope of one. If you weren’t military, you might find yourself fired because of a defence contract or some such thing, and you would never know why.
Now think, Paul, now that your citizenship is notional and doled out at the pleasure and convenience of the executive branch, how do you think you would fare if instead of simply putting your name on some paper they took you into custody and put you through the mill? The sensory and sleep deprivation, then extremes of temperature and other sensations, mostly pain. And they probably wouldn’t even ask you a question or say a word to you for the first two days? After all, Paul, “National Security” depends on such treatment of you, chances can’t be taken. There’s no such thing as a mistake, if you admit a mistake you lose “credibility”. Maybe a nieghbor just thinks you’re a pain in the ass and drops a dime, too.Who knows why they might take someone? Just remember, Paul, the folks with the batteries, hoods, dogs…they don’t mind “breakage”, “collateral damage”, “rooting out some flowers with the weeds”.
Back during WWII, the “good war” if someone had a beef with the neighbor, if someone knew there was a birthday or perhaps anniversary in the offing, they’d wait until just before the great day and make an annonymous tip to the ration board and report the nieghbors as “hoarders”. Just THINK of the possibilities unfolding now. And you can do it in the name of national security.
Pingback: Irregular Times: News Unfit for Print » Blog Archive » Did Democrats Know, But Do Nothing, About Spying?