"I fully understand everybody's not going to agree with my decisions. But the president's job is to do what he thinks is right, and that's what I'm going to continue to do."So there you go you ungrateful pack of hyenas, George said so.
"It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy." Bush refutes `unchecked powers' in wiretap debate
I don’t ‘fully understand’ why, judging from most of the blogs I have seen on the issue, most people are quite happy to accept the President ignoring legal imperatives.
Mind you, I don’t understand my many compliant, fellow Sydneysiders, simply handing over mobile phone to police on request, following the riots in that city.
Surely it is not a question of security; it is a question of how much citizens of our ‘free’ societies are willing to surrender freedoms.
A president or a policeman is part of the law; they are part of society, not apart from it. I understand the Sydney situation was urgently passed into law, a continuation of the knee jerk stripping of citizen’s rights.
As I understand the situation, current US law does not accept unauthorised intrusions.
In admitting to authorising the eavesdropping program, Bush says he did it to protect the American people from terrorists determined to destroy the US.
Bush forcefully defended his administration's eavesdropping program for terrorist suspects living in the United States as an essential element of protecting Americans from a new enemy, and he said whoever unmasked the secret plan had committed a "shameful act."
"To say `unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject. I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country."Good on you America! If you, expect and choose to allow the office of the president to trample over your basic rights you will no doubt get what you deserve.
I know it is difficult to hear and understand the flow of information when your head is lodged firmly in the sand. In the Patriot Act speech by Bush in April last year, two years after he gave the NSA the authority to wiretap without FISA approval, he stated:
"Any time you hear the US Government talking about wiretap, a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."Then the spin doctors get into the act: “Bush's comments referred to the roving wiretaps allowed for law enforcement under the Patriot Act, not wiretaps for foreign intelligence.”
Now that is just too cute for words. Let’s just cause as much verbal mayhem as our language will allow.
Meantime the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, Jay Rockefeller is saying, “I told you so Dick!” Senator Rockefeller sent Cheney a handwritten letter July 2003 (Download pdf ) saying he couldn’t endorse these secret plans, basically because they were so secret.
He couldn’t discuss the issue with anyone and therefore couldn’t take advice on legal and technical issues involved. That put a hole in White House claim that senior Democrats had endorsed the surveillance program.
Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham added his two cents, saying that the Bush administration never briefed him, as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, about a covert domestic wiretap program. He went on to suggest the possibility that it grew out of “a creep of presidential authority.”
Graham recalled being summoned to a classified briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney in late 2001 or early 2002. He was informed about a presidential directive that let the National Security Agency eavesdrop on overseas calls that moved through U.S. communications lines, not people speaking on the phone inside the United States.
Well George, Dick, I guess that would blow you out of the water, if you actually respected the laws you are supposed to be administering.
I find the issue distressing as I watch George’s mate, John Howard introduce increasingly totalitarian rule in Australia. I find it distressing when citizens in both countries blandly accept increasingly harsh laws to control problems largely created by those governments, an exacerbated by their actions.
What is happening to the spirit of democracy that we are so spineless that we simply tune out while it dribbles away?
Personally I don’t really care if they tap my phone; I detest the instrument and rarely ever use it. Likewise with emails, my most seditious thoughts are here online for anyone to see.
But the principle that I cherish; if it seditious, unpatriotic, or as they are fond of saying in my country ‘UnAustralian’, so be it!
We can wring our hands and moan about politicians robbing us and our country’s blind. They are robbing us of money, which in the end is simply an allusion created to grease the wheels of our societies.
If these thieves really believe the wealth they gain through theft will advance them in any way, good on them. The fact is it will only rot their miserable souls even more.
It is the power, or more to the point, misuse of power which will have an enduring effect on our lives. Our democracies might not be the best models of government, but they seem to be the nest we can achieve at this stage. If we are to vest authority in elected representatives, it is no good simply voting then going back to sleep.
The evidence is clear that our representatives simply can’t handle the authority we give them without constant monitoring and surveillance.
Hold on a minute. Isn’t that what they think about us, the citizens?
5 comments:
As long as there's technology mixing with the human race, there is no privacy. There are companies that have access to email,credit information, addresses etc. Sure the employees have signed a privacy statement, but these companies are all over the world and employ tens of thousands of people. Are they all going to keep quiet? And might I remind you, this is at a much lower level than Presidency. My point is the violation of privacy rights is common if you choose to use technology. We'd virtually have to get rid of phones, computers, credit cards, banks, become unemployed and live like a hermit in the mountains. I believe the average materialistic person of today would rather risk their privacy.
So what's the big deal? The human race has already given up their right to privacy via the introduction of technology. As you are aware, there are companies that have access to your email, credit information, address etc. Sure the employees have signed a non-dislosure form, but with a hundred thousand employees, world wide, how many of those do you think will abide? To achieve privacy, one would have to get rid of their computer, phones, banking, become unemployed and live in the mountains like a hermit. Unfortunately, we live in a materialistic world with these companies ramming their products down our throat and I think people would rather ignore the consequences of owning technology.
So what's the big deal? The human race has already given up their right to privacy via the introduction of technology. As you are aware, there are companies that have access to your email, credit information, address etc. Sure the employees have signed a non-dislosure form, but with a hundred thousand employees, world wide, how many of those do you think will abide? To achieve privacy, one would have to get rid of their computer, phones, banking, become unemployed and live in the mountains like a hermit. Unfortunately, we live in a materialistic world with these companies ramming their products down our throat and I think people would rather ignore the consequences of owning technology
I found it really interesting that at that press conference, Bush is the one who brought up the word "dictatorial."
And, quite frankly, as has been pointed out elsewhere, a terrorist who is not sophisticated enough to evade the US's wiretapping through encryption, cut outs, dead drops, hand carried messages, ads in newspapers and all the other basics of spycraft, probably isn't smart enough to carry out the "mushroom cloud" terror attack Bush is supposedly doing this to protect us against.
I mean, I just read spy novels and I know how to avoid it if I wanted to.
Oh, and warrantless spying on Americans it's horribly wrong.
Mike
voteforme has a point on the ability of many tech company employees to interecept a rang of communications, officially and otherwise.
That of course open a whole different can of worms.
I still get a kick out of the term 'intellegence' for what is more often just twaddle.
I note no one in Australia is screaming about the intensive text message tracing in that country, and that is simply to catch a bunch of 'naughty' kids.
Ethical governance and rule of law must be the unerpinning or we slide into Bush's "dictatorial" regimes.
As Senator Graham puts it "a creep of presidential authority." Or in Australia's case, just a creep!
Post a Comment