The neocons tell me it's wrong to question the government's spying. "Anything they do to fight terrorism is OK," they tell me. The Bush administration has concluded that the FISA Court isn't sufficient. Even though the court has approved virtually every wiretap request it has received (the court was created in 1978) and even though the court's rules allow a president to order an emergency wiretap on his authority and then to present supporting evidence to the court within 72 hours, Bush and his cronies felt that wasn't adequate.
That frightens me. It should frighten you, even if you're a Bush supporter.
The problem is that Bush is creating precedent. If this is allowed to continue, then Bush and any future president will be allowed to order wiretaps at will. Would those who support today's excesses by the Bush camp be happy to see these procedures used by President Kerry, President Gore, or President Clinton? I suspect that they would not. The difference between them and me is that I would oppose this kind of activity by President Gore, President Kerry, or President Clinton ("my" presidents) while they feel that anything "their" president does is moral, ethical, legal, and approved by the one true God.
The FISA Court was established to create minimal safeguards for Americans to avoid the abuses the Nixon administration perpetrated. Why does George War Bush feel that he can trample even these minimal safeguards? If he's unwilling to provide the FISA Court with justifications for his wiretap orders, might that justification be missing? Is it possible that Bush, his brain (Rove), and his keeper (Cheney) have created a Nixonian enemies list? (If so, I'm certainly on it.)
Why can't this administration, which claims to be for strict interpretation of the Constitution, abide by the Constitution?
Oh, by the way – if you believe that I think wiretaps and spying should be eliminated entirely, you're absolutely and completely wrong. The government has the right and the duty to protect Americans. But is also has the duty to abide by the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress.
We have a president, not a king, and presidents are not above the law.
28 December 2005
25 December 2005
The blown presidency
I've seen bumper stickers recently that suggest someone should give George W. Bush a blow job so that he can be impeached. This is absurd, of course, a simple blow job in the Oval Office would never be enough to get Mister Bush impeached. To be impeached, the president would have to do something politically foolish and fiscally reckless such as reducing tax cuts for the wealthy and restoring funding cuts for the neediest US citizens. Or he might propose a national health insurance program. Or suggest gun control.
Simply lying to congress, the people who elected him, and the world isn't sufficient.
But just for my own amusement, I wondered ...
And ...
I wanted to upload these to CafePress, but I knew it would be rejected because they won't allow pictures of celebrities. The photo of the Liar and Thief would be OK, but not the young lady. So this morning (26 December) it occurred to me that there's a way I can make this sentiment acceptable to CafePress:
And ...
These are currently at Bush Remover on CafePress.com.
Simply lying to congress, the people who elected him, and the world isn't sufficient.
But just for my own amusement, I wondered ...
And ...
I wanted to upload these to CafePress, but I knew it would be rejected because they won't allow pictures of celebrities. The photo of the Liar and Thief would be OK, but not the young lady. So this morning (26 December) it occurred to me that there's a way I can make this sentiment acceptable to CafePress:
And ...
These are currently at Bush Remover on CafePress.com.
Notice an increase in the use of "impeach"?
[A]fter former Nixon White House counsel John Dean suggested that the NSA spying was an impeachable offense, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., sent a letter Monday to some legal scholars seeking opinions.
"This is a country founded on the rule of law," [Rep. Ben Chandler, D-Kentucky], "and (Bush) goes around talking about establishing the rule of law around the world, then he flouts the rule of law here on grounds that he's got to do it to fight terror. We're giving away some of our basic freedoms if we continue to flout the law."
Louisville Courier-Journal (25 Dec 2005)
The slippery slope that Bush has embarked upon leads to a police state, plain and simple.
Bush argues that his powers as a president in “times of war” are plenary – that is, full, complete, without limit. Yet the very soul of a democracy is the equal powers that the three branches of government share, each serving as a counterweight to the messianic impulses that any one of the other branches might dare assume.
How can President Bush claim to want to instill a working democracy in Iraq, while at the same time violating our own U.S. laws, our own system of checks and balances? Terrorism is a serious risk to our nation, but a far greater threat is the centralization of American political power in the hands of any single branch of the government.
The Santiago (Chile) Times (21 Dec 2005)
Some adults in the United States believe legal charges should be sought against their president, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports for AfterDowningStreet.org. 32 per cent of respondents believe George W. Bush should be impeached and removed from office, while 58 per cent disagree.
Rasmussen Reports based on telephone interviews with 1,000 American adults, conducted on Dec. 9 and Dec. 10, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.
Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter (19 Dec 2005)
Even some of the conservative press -- the ones that understand honor and rule of law -- are talking about impeachment:
Now the president and his lawyers are claiming that they have greater latitude. They say that neither the USA Patriot Act nor the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act actually sets the real boundary. The administration is saying the president has unlimited authority to order wiretaps in the pursuit of foreign terrorists, and that the Congress has no power to overrule him.
Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved.
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.
Editoral in Barrons (Dec 2005)
"This is a country founded on the rule of law," [Rep. Ben Chandler, D-Kentucky], "and (Bush) goes around talking about establishing the rule of law around the world, then he flouts the rule of law here on grounds that he's got to do it to fight terror. We're giving away some of our basic freedoms if we continue to flout the law."
Louisville Courier-Journal (25 Dec 2005)
The slippery slope that Bush has embarked upon leads to a police state, plain and simple.
Bush argues that his powers as a president in “times of war” are plenary – that is, full, complete, without limit. Yet the very soul of a democracy is the equal powers that the three branches of government share, each serving as a counterweight to the messianic impulses that any one of the other branches might dare assume.
How can President Bush claim to want to instill a working democracy in Iraq, while at the same time violating our own U.S. laws, our own system of checks and balances? Terrorism is a serious risk to our nation, but a far greater threat is the centralization of American political power in the hands of any single branch of the government.
The Santiago (Chile) Times (21 Dec 2005)
Some adults in the United States believe legal charges should be sought against their president, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports for AfterDowningStreet.org. 32 per cent of respondents believe George W. Bush should be impeached and removed from office, while 58 per cent disagree.
Rasmussen Reports based on telephone interviews with 1,000 American adults, conducted on Dec. 9 and Dec. 10, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.
Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter (19 Dec 2005)
Even some of the conservative press -- the ones that understand honor and rule of law -- are talking about impeachment:
Now the president and his lawyers are claiming that they have greater latitude. They say that neither the USA Patriot Act nor the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act actually sets the real boundary. The administration is saying the president has unlimited authority to order wiretaps in the pursuit of foreign terrorists, and that the Congress has no power to overrule him.
Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved.
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.
Editoral in Barrons (Dec 2005)
18 December 2005
Truth at last?
The Bushwhacker admits that his administration plays fast and loose with our privacy. (Isn't this what got Nixon busted?) And, of course, his supporters (the same folks who went ballistic when Clinton did anything that threatened their privacy) will now look at him and say, "Look! He always levels with the American people, even when he has to lie to do it."
And they will fucking believe it!
And they will fucking believe it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
