The most recent example of that phenomenon is the bugging issue. Even though a perfectly workable and efficient legal procedure exists through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to tap the phones and read the e-mails of anyone who could conceivably be a threat to American security, President Bush decided nonetheless in 2002 to begin breaking that law and establishing surveillance of anyone he liked -- or didn't like -- in disregard of the law and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court.There you have it. In each of those three paragraphs, Dan Simpson makes the same point we've been making here for a long time.
On that basis, hundreds and perhaps thousands of Americans have had their communications intercepted and monitored by the National Security Agency. Even assuming that the information NSA picked up was important and useful -- most of which the FBI says was not -- there is no reason in the world why the warrants couldn't have been obtained, even after the fact, that would have made the action legal, keeping Mr. Bush in observance of the law.
Now the White House is telling us that we should be glad that the president is taking that illegal action, in the name of keeping us safe, in the process playing to Americans' fear of another terrorist attack. The truly frightening part is that polls show an important percentage of the American population ready to sell off their privacy and this important segment of their constitutionally guaranteed rights in response to the false White House claim that they will be safer for doing so.
George Bush is breaking the law.
Now if we can only get Simpson to agree with us about that pesky "I" word. Which "I" word, you ask? You know the one I'm talking about.
IMPEACH
4 comments:
Nothing like continually demonstrating that you and those like you don't wish to work with the President on fighting terrorism. All you want to partake in is partisan politics, nothing more, nothing less. Why? Because of your steaming mad hatred for George W. Bush on account of the last two Presidential elections. Sad, pal. Real sad.
I get the feeling that you and those like you want to stop this President from fighting terrorism any way you can, so that if this country were to get hit by another terrorist attack due to your meddling, you'd all be able to finger point and blame him.
You guys have no interest in fighting terrorism, yet you'd all be the very first to cry and whine if and when it were to happen again.
Step aside, and let real people do the work for you, as you can cry and whine from the sidelines like you continue to do on a daily basis as demonstrated by your scathing and hateful comments.
Impeach you say? It's a liberal pipe dream and you know it. Your argument is getting older as each day goes on. You have absolutely nothing to stand on.
Braden;
I always enjoy your comments. Really. For instance, in this comment I really enjoy how you completely sidestep the main point of the blog posting: George Bush is breaking the law.
Instead you focus on my (supposed) intentions.
But let me see if I can analyse your argument.
By pointing out the president's law-breaking, I am guilty of trying to stop him from fighting the war on terrorism.
I guess you'd rather no one point out the president's felonious actions.
But we do agree on one thing: The chances of this Republican Congress impeaching Bush are pretty slim. But not because there's no cause to (heck, they've already admitted to breaking the law), but because the Republican house is too corrupt to bring charges.
If a president lies about oral sex, that's enough to impeach. But if a president lies about the 4th amendment, he gets a pass.
Nice to know the Republicans have a healthy respect for the rule of law, huh pal?
Dayvoe,
Pot...Kettle...Black.
- Braden :)
Seriously, can we get a better grade of trolls around here? Sheesh!
Post a Comment