The Chris Moeller Archives

4 Comments:

At 12:56 PM,  Anonymous said...

I'll take the "indefensible" challenge.

At first, I agreed, that this was stepping over the line and probably should be stopped. But then I thought about two things that make me at least sway on the stance that this is wrong. I'll try to articulate them in a way that could sway you.

1) What if one of these wire taps got the gov't info that stopped a planned hijacking of a plane from Russia to the US with your dad, stepmom, and baby sister on board?

2) If you truly believed that this spying could prevent just one large-scale terrorist attack on the US (as I believe Bush does), then how could you not implement the practice and still go in front of the camera and say you are doing everything you can to protect Americans.

I would hope there are limits to the reasons for ordering surveillance, and I hope the evidence would only be admissible in a court involving charges of conspiracy to commit murder.

Of course I hope they are not doing this to many innocent civilians, but I think they should do all they can to track and monitor suspected terrorists. And if someone is planning or funding or cheering the deaths of innocent Americans, then I don't think they deserve to have any rights (like privacy) protected at all.

 

At 10:27 PM,  CM said...

I wish there was a function on this blog that allowed me to delete recitations of Bush's phony rhetoric. Of course, there is, but I choose not to exercise that power. That's just one difference between me and our President.

Bush is not the least bit concerned with keeping us safe. OUR fear plays directly into HIS political strategy. Have you noticed how there hasn't been a single mention of raising the threat level since the election? That's all we heard about during the campaign. Now we hear nothing. His entire administration is operated by the political arm, i.e. Karl Rove.

The main goal of this program was to allow Bush to spy on his political enemies. At campaign rallies in 2004, the Secret Service was demanding to know the names of protesters at the scene, and now we know precisely why. Am I wrong to assume the White House's motives? Hard to prove me wrong since the program is still operated in complete secrecy.

Shitting on the Constitution does not make us safer, just as-- literally-- shitting on prisoners, and other examples of our country's torture practices, also does not. It turns us into a global laughingstock, casting widespread doubts upon our commitment to democracy, and fueling the recruitment efforts of our enemy.

Bush arrogantly violated the separation of powers here. He blatantly abused the law that requires court orders for secret surveillance. He bypassed Congress by only notifying a couple friendly members in private, and he tried to keep the practice a secret from the American people throughout the entire process.

It only takes 72 hours, retroactive to the beginning of one of these investigations, to get a court order for surveillance, and only four government requests have been denied by the Intelligence court since 1978. What does that tell us about Bush's surveillance plans? It tells us that the specific operations are so bogus and so unconnected to the "War on Terror" that Bush believes even a court with a rubber stamp would reject them.

Republicans would NEVER tolerate this from a Democratic President. They would riot in the streets, and rightfully so. What makes it even worse is that Bush isn't even remorseful for having gotten caught. He spun it this afternoon that the person that leaked the facts of the policy committed the "shameful act."

Shame is what I feel, for the whole lot of us. Shame that our President feels he can govern as a monarch, and shame that so many of our citizens think he's likewise entitled.

 

At 1:16 PM,  Anonymous said...

You addressed neither of my points in your rambling response. Let's assume that "the most powerful man in the world" actually makes some of his own decisions and it is not someone behind the scenes (Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld). If you were president and you saw almost 3,000 of your citizens die on 9/11. Then someone comes to you and says we could start monitoring the international phone conversations of people who may be connected to terrorists. As a rational, moral leader of the nation, don't you think that is a pretty easy decision to make. Again, if he believes this can prevent just one terrorist attack, he has a justifiable reason for doing this.

Suggesting he is using this to spy on political foes is baseless and ignorant.

 

At 10:03 PM,  CM said...

"Baseless and ignorant?"

Ignorance is trusting the wisdom and best intentions of an administration that pulled a bait-and-switch to get us into a war for Middle-Eastern oil, awarded giant war contracts to friends and financial contributors, lied about Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, and Jeff Gannon, used taxpayer money to pay off political commentators to endorse their legislative initiatives, used surrogates to slander the war records of John McCain, Max Cleland, and John Kerry, scapegoated lowly-ranked officers at Abu Ghraib for what has proven to be a widespread practice of American torture, covered up a policy of outsourcing some of the torture to Uzbekistan, filled the vital position of FEMA director with an unqualified crony, then defended the idiot's actions after he butchered the relief effort in New Orleans, continues to deny Geneva Convention protections and the writ of habeus corpus to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and even lied to the American people about these wiretaps on several occasions throughout 2004 and 2005.

I quote George W. Bush in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, 7/14/04- "A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order. What the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, WITHOUT ABRIDGING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (my emphasis,) the tools necessary to defend America."

"Baseless and ignorant?"

Just today, we have FBI records becoming public (thanks to Freedom of Information requests by the ACLU) that the agency is conducting surveillance of groups that focus their activism on the environment, animal cruelty, and poverty relief.

One FBI document, according to today's disclosures, indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct wiretaps on a "Vegan Community Project." A second talks about the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology," and a third indicated the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

"Baseless and ignorant?"

Doesn't the Executive Branch already have a dubious history of spying on loyal Americans? Prior to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FBI spies eavesdropped on pinkos ranging from Martin Luther King Jr. to Hubert Humphrey to John Lennon. A few simple wiretaps back then may have been a small price to pay to guarantee Dave L's safe entry into the freedom-loving world, but it was a bit more inconvenient for these cultural leaders.

A person didn't have to be President on September 11th to feel the impact of 3,000 people dead, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon today to identify crass political opportunism and outright deceit when it manifests itself in Washington.

It's time for the courts to put an end to the Executive Branch's bullying into the private and civic lives of its citizens, and it's time for the Legislative Branch to start those damn impeachment hearings! I don't hold out much hope for the coming year, but I fully anticipate their arrival, along with the new Congress, in January of 2007.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Contributors

• CM
• Unknown