Thread: On this Date in Bush History 12/16: Ignoring US Law

On this Date in Bush History 12/16: Ignoring US Law

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin, 1755

2005: The NY Times reports that President Bush has authorized the "surveillance of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law". U.S. law provides a system to get such warrants, using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). This court, in fact, rarely turns down such requests. In addition, approval of a warrant can happen within hours in an emergency. Further, Congress, then with a Republican majority in both houses, has stated that if the current system is still not flexible enough, changes to the law can be considered to provide Mr. Bush with the additional surveillance powers he feels he needs. By doing so, seeking legal approval by Congress and using judicial oversight, President Bush would help maintain the balance of powers between the various branches of government. This balance is a fundamental principle that the founding fathers built into the Constitution.

Now here comes King George who believes that he is above all of this. He feels no need to respect the carefully designed system of government checks and balances. He feels no need to honor the Constitutional principles that the nation's founding fathers fought to establish so many years ago. He believes that the decision to perform this spying on citizens can be made solely within the executive branch of the government, without agreement that there is a reasonable basis to do so from the judicial branch. The president, in giving himself this power, in this manner, just on his own say so, is also providing a basis for giving these powers to future presidents on their own say so. Such presidents, perhaps Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney, or an individual with desires leaning towards the dictatorial, would have far greater latitude to spy on citizens, should President Bush's fiat stand. This expansion of presidential power puts the nation at risk by giving future presidents these same unsupervised surveillance rights more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy.

"Information is moving -- you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets." President Bush, May 2nd 2007

Excerpted from the 2008 Bush Calendar that no amount of illegal wiretaps will catch me repeating the name of (at least if political hotwire is doing the tapping!)

I really don't have a problem with surveillance. We live a much more dangerous world then we did even just 20 years ago and enhanced protection may need to be at the expense of some privacy. You can't have it both ways.

If the NSA or the CIA or whomsoever else wants to listen to my wife gab on the phone for the better part of each day, hey knock yourselves out guys.

I can understand that view Bourne. What I object to is the ignoring US law. There is a procedure set up in place, and if it was inaduequate it could be changed. If we become a country where the president just feels free to ignore to the law we are on the road toward moving away from democracy and toward a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by blueButGlad

I can understand that view Bourne. What I object to is the ignoring US law. There is a procedure set up in place, and if it was inaduequate it could be changed. If we become a country where the president just feels free to ignore to the law we are on the road toward moving away from democracy and toward a dictatorship.

I probably should have qualified my post by emphasizing that I'm expressing my personal opinion and others will certainly disagree. Indeed, it is troubling that there is no judicial oversight. I can't imagine why not unless the executive branch has certain powers which permit them to take such action. I'll be researching this.

Originally Posted by Bourne

I'll be researching this.

Start with David Addington, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. Of course it goes deeper than just them and just this case of illegal use of wiretapping, it goes pretty much to the point that the men behind the man are there to make the man as powerful as possible, which doesn't sustain well in a democracy.

If you need reference to that, look at the amount of dissent, distrust, and disenfranchisement of the people.

Some good documentarys on the subject:

FRONTLINE: cheney's law: watch the full program online (video) | PBS
FRONTLINE: spying on the home front: watch the full program online | PBS

if you have high speed internet.

Originally Posted by johnflesh

Start with David Addington, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. Of course it goes deeper than just them and just this case of illegal use of wiretapping, it goes pretty much to the point that the men behind the man are there to make the man as powerful as possible, which doesn't sustain well in a democracy.

If you need reference to that, look at the amount of dissent, distrust, and disenfranchisement of the people.

Some good documentarys on the subject:

FRONTLINE: cheney's law: watch the full program online (video) | PBS
FRONTLINE: spying on the home front: watch the full program online | PBS

if you have high speed internet.

Thanks for the references. I saw "Cheney's Law" on Frontline and it was excellent.

Originally Posted by Bourne

I really don't have a problem with surveillance. We live a much more dangerous world then we did even just 20 years ago and enhanced protection may need to be at the expense of some privacy. You can't have it both ways.

If the NSA or the CIA or whomsoever else wants to listen to my wife gab on the phone for the better part of each day, hey knock yourselves out guys.

I don't believe the government is listening at random in order to catch terrorists or whatever. They go about this by getting information from all the telecom companies. Basically the point i'm trying to make is that the federal government knows who they are spying on when they are doing it so its purposeful. In the end though if they are listening to you or your wife gab on the phone, they know who you are and they are doing it just to keep tabs on you.

I understand wanting the wire tapping for a degree of safety, but like the article at top states, it really isn't that hard to obtain a warrant, especially against any suspected terrorist. Remember the quote from Frankiln at top and keep the government out of your phone, it's for your own good.

Most Americans have nothing to hide, we don't have to prove that to the feds.

I recommend the Frontline shows also. Thanks for posting the links.