December 31st, 2005
|09:39 am - The bark doesn't fall far from the tree -- unless the wind is really strong.|
You think I'm sarcastic in choice of stories? You should meet my Pop.
He forwarded me this gem (yes, it's meant to be inflammatorily left-wing):
From: It's my party and I'll spy if I want to - article posted by Glenn McAdoo in the Lahontan Valley News 12/26/05
For all of you who still claim this president doesn't lie, this must come as a shock. For the rest of us it just comes as another "we told you so." He admitted as much the other day when he vowed to continue the practice of spying on American citizens whom he suspects may have ties to Al Qaeda.
The problem is, who is deciding just what amounts to "ties to Al Qaeda?" Not the courts. George W. Bush is above the law. He and he alone will decide. Okay, he may consult with a crony or two.
As Richard Nixon once said, "if the president does it, it can't be illegal."
How times have changed. With a few exceptions, the most outspoken Republicans who were screaming for the head of Bill Clinton for lying about an extra-marital encounter, claiming no one was above the law, are singing a different tune now that it's their guy who seems to believe he is above the law.
President Bush can easily get court approval to allow the National Security Agency to spy on suspected terrorists collaborators. In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which established a secret court. One of its judges has now resigned, apparently in protest of President Bush's actions. Since its establishment it has granted more than 19,000 requests for warrants, usually within hours, while denying only five.
What is George W. Bush afraid of?
What about emergencies, you ask? We might need to act quickly, you say. In such a case the president can go ahead without a warrant so long as he gets approval of the court within 72 hours.
Again, the president's actions make no sense unless he is conducting spying activities that he has reason to believe the court would not allow. That is not only scary, it is downright criminal.
The president's explanation continues to baffle most Americans. He claims that on numerous occasions congress was informed, as if that makes it alright [sic]. Eight members were briefed, but having been sworn to secrecy, they couldn't publicly object without breaking the law themselves and being subjected to criminal charges.
This is not the congressional oversight required by law.
Okay all you conservatives out there who have mistakenly claimed that all liberals want to take away your guns --try this on for size. President Bush's (hardly a liberal) interpretation of the Constitution would give him the power to disregard the Second Amendment, come into you home without a warrant, and take away your guns because he had intelligence that you might have ties to Al Qaeda. Oh, you don't have ties to Al Qaeda? Well shut my mouth, you mean the president's intelligence was faulty? Sorry, it's your word against his. Maybe you trust this president's intelligence, but I wouldn't if I were you. I don't.
Yanno, at this juncture, it does not really matter if you are Republican or Democrat - this boy seems headed down the path of usurping the Presidency for something a little less ...democratic... - and everyone should be concerned.
Really, take a minute and tick off the liberties and freedoms that have been amended or revoked since Clinton left office. I think You will be surprised.
The full article (in case you wanna read it)
Well, as much as the choice of words may be a bit over the top, I gotta say for once I wholeheartedly agree. There was a quote in a WaPo article a little while back of...jeez, it might've been someone in the administration...who came right out and said:
"For FISA, [the administration] had to put down a written justification for the wiretap," the official told the Post. "They couldn't dream one up."
*sigh* Thankfully it still is not an acceptable reason to list "cuz we want to" as the the reason... not yet, anyway.