In his weekly radio address, the President just said that "in the war on terror, we can't be without [the Patriot Act] for a moment." He also said that before September 11, "terrorists at home communicated with terrorists abroad," but we didn't know that the terrorists were here [at home].
I'm not very intelligent about this type of thing, but can't the people who monitor these communications tell from the context of the conversations whether someone is inside or outside the country? Also, if a person in our country is reasonably suspected as a criminal, don't the authorities then have probable cause get a court-ordered wire tap? And can't this be done pretty quickly?
It seems to me that the President just wants to be able to spy on anyone and everyone for no particular reason without having to go through the judicial system for authorization. Sounds like that violates the Constitution.
Mugsy: 2001-2014
10 years ago
14 comments:
The man is out of control. I see no real purpose or need for many of his Draconian, Gestapo tactics.
This is the type of government the Iraqi's are voting for? This is the government our soldiers are dying to serve?
Are not these the same tactics used by the Soviets and loathed by America during the Cold War? Are not these many of the same tactics used by Saddam?
Cannot the majority detect the hypocrisy and irony of the current climate in our Administration?
I shouldn't complain. I got the government I voted for. America, I apologize.
Tony
P.S.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Don't feel bad, Tony. That man wrapped the cross in the flag and played right into a lot of people's hands.
I have a bad feeling that after the first of the year there will be an "I told you so" terrorist attack.
Do you think he is justifying this as (what Camp would call) "the end justifies the means"?
JB, that is exactly his rhetoric. And he cannot see that not only is it wrong, that it is idolatry, but that it doesn't even work.
JMG, I know he duped many Christians, but that doesn't make feel any better. I was still a sheep in the wrong flock. I am suppose to be in Jesus' flock.
In order to be an immaculate member of a flock of sheep, one must be above all else, a sheep. -- Albert Einstein
Tony
He'll say the ends justify the means, and lots of idiots will still buy it. Violating the constitution is OK as long as the violations are helping to preserve our way of life. The ironic thing, though, is that the more the constitution is violated, the more our way of life crumbles, and they don't see that.
I'm afraid that it'll take him getting a BJ in the oval office before some people are willing to impeach him.
Sorry to be crude.
I'm listening to Bush's press conference this morning.
Now he's saying that if we have open conversations about the legality of the surveillance tactics that have been in use, it will tell the terrorists how to change their tactics so as to not be caught.
Everything he says goes back to reminding people of 9/11 and how dangerous the terrorists are. "They want to attack us. They want to kill us." Every answer of his goes back to this idea. If he can keep us scared of the terrorists, he can sell all sorts of unconstitutional measures.
I am very perplexed over his motive. What is his motive?
It just doesn't make sense, and that scares me. Is he really that paranoid of the "terrorists"? Is he politically in danger enough that he needs to create a new enemy for America to focus on like during the Cold War?
Is he just crazy?
The world and many Americans see through the scare tactics and know that we are not in constant, imminent danger from the "terrorists". I am not trying to trivalize 9/11 or current risks and threats, but I don't think we need to be scurrying for the bunkers like scared rabbits either. Then the terrorists win.
If fact, when you look at the Patriot Act and the TSA Watch List (this thing is very insidious BTW), you have to say the terrorists won. They accomplished what they desired. Destruction of our system. We are criminalizing our own citizens. If you don't believe this, wait until your name gets on the TSA Watchlist. You will change your tune.
What is his motive?
Tony
I don't want to sound like a Bush apologist, but to some extent I can understand the reluctance to discuss surveillance methods. I remember a few years ago when Orrin Hatch bragged in an interview about how the U.S. could listen in on bin Laden's satellite-phone conversations. So what did bin Laden do? He stopped using his satellite phone.
This is not to say that such unchecked spying doesn't make me uncomfortable. With my blog's Sitemeter, I have detected visitors from the NSA and Homeland Security Agency monitoring my fatwas. I fear that my name will be put on the watchlists.
Point taken, Mugsy, but when our government is skirting the law in order to monitor U.S. citizens, it's just a matter of time before more and more of the laws are broken. When we don't speak out and demand an explanation we become complicit in the breakdown of our own democracy.
I'm just wondering, before news of this scandal broke, there was a lot of talk about Iran and a possible new war (or extension of the current one). Could it be that this spying story is just something for everyone to talk about in order to divert our attention away from war plans against Iran?
I agree, JMG. The erosion of the Constitution in recent years -- and the willingness of Congress and the Supreme Court to support it -- has been shocking.
Take the Jose Padilla case, for example, the alleged dirty bomber. Padilla is more than likely a lowlife, but he is a U.S. citizen. And he was deprived of his rights to due process for three years before being charged. For a long time, he wasn't even allowed to see a lawyer. Yet it seems that nobody with any power spoke up for the Constitution.
I guess what I was getting at in my last post is that I am conflicted. The 9/11 commission painted a portrait of ineptitude from top to bottom before the 2001 attacks. And now, we haven't had an attack on U.S. soil since. Though I dislike Bush and abhor many of his policies, I sometimes wonder if he should get some credit for preventing another attack. Ultimately, though, I don't believe the ends justifies the means.
I think that an attack on Iran at this point -- with our military stretched so thin -- would be disastrous. Thus, I wouldn't put it past Bush.
Post a Comment