Democrats & Liberals Archives

President Bush's Idea of Accountability: "Trust Me"

President Bush apparently thought when Congress gave him power to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001”, he took that to mean that he could sidestep the need for a warrant and eliminate the paper trail it provides.

He effectively became the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branch. The problem with all of this is that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. That ruling is the precedent that should have set the stage for what “appropriate force” is.

In the case of United States v. United States District Court,
decided on June 19, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the President does not have the authority to conduct domestic electronic surveillance without Judicial oversight.

These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch. The Fourth Amendment does not contemplate the executive officers of Government as neutral and disinterested magistrates. Their duty and responsibility are to enforce the laws, to investigate, and to prosecute. Katz v. United States, supra, at 359-360 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). But those charged with this investigative and prosecutorial duty should not be the sole judges of when to utilize constitutionally sensitive means in pursuing their tasks. The historical judgment, which the Fourth Amendment accepts, is that unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech.
The Government argues that the special circumstances applicable to domestic security surveillances necessitate a further exception to the warrant requirement. It is urged that the requirement of prior judicial review would obstruct the President in the discharge of his constitutional duty to protect domestic security. We are told further that these surveillances are directed primarily to the collecting and maintaining of intelligence with respect to subversive forces, and are not an attempt to gather evidence for specific criminal prosecutions. It is said that this type of surveillance should not be subject to traditional warrant requirements which were established to govern investigation of criminal activity, not ongoing intelligence gathering.
These contentions in behalf of a complete exemption from the warrant requirement, when urged on behalf of the President and the national security in its domestic implications, merit the most careful consideration. We certainly do not reject them lightly, especially at a time of worldwide ferment and when civil disorders in this country are more prevalent than in the less turbulent periods of our history. There is, no doubt, pragmatic force to the Government's position.

But we do not think a case has been made for the requested departure from Fourth Amendment standards. The circumstances described do not justify complete exemption of domestic security surveillance from prior judicial scrutiny. Official surveillance, whether its purpose be criminal investigation or ongoing intelligence gathering, risks infringement of constitutionally protected privacy of speech. Security surveillances are especially sensitive because of the inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept, the necessarily broad and continuing nature of intelligence gathering, and the temptation to utilize such surveillances to oversee political dissent. We recognize, as we have before, the constitutional basis of the President's domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a manner compatible with the Fourth Amendment. In this case, we hold that this requires an appropriate prior warrant procedure.

In response the U.S. Congress set up a special court and rules in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with the intent of addressing the issue of Judicial oversight, that did not impede the speed or threaten the secrecy of obtaining such a warrant. There is even a provision that allows surveillance to begin immediately, as long as a warrant is sought within 72 hours. If the FISA court still imposed a problem for intelligence gathering, then why didn't the President just go to Congress and work to change the law using Constitutional rules?

President Bush decided, instead, to side step this law and Judicial oversight, and avoid the paper trail of a warrant. Without a warrant there is no documentation, therefore, no accountability as to who and why the government was engaging in wiretapping. The President simply says "trust me". How do we know, without the oversight and documentation of the Judiciary, that the President was spying on only people with connections to known terror suspects?

Posted by JayJay Snow at December 19, 2005 6:26 PM
Comments
Comment #104604

Newsweek is now reporting that Bush tried to kill the NSA story two weeks ago by inviting the New York Times to the Oval Office.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

Posted by: scarp at December 19, 2005 10:32 PM
Comment #104606

This is the best explanation that I have seen so far regarding the legality of the wiretaps in question. We’ve seen much in the media over the last few days, but very little substantive information regarding the specifics.
I’ve been waiting for some determination on the legal aspect of this activity. Even though I’m on the left, I am perfectly willing to accept the president’s answer if the activities are legal.
But it appears that they are not. I’ve gone to Fox News to hear that side of the story, and their talking heads have provided nothing except statements that it’s legal, without any suppportive information to back it up.
Likewise on other media outlets. I’ve seen much in the way of opinion, but nothing that one can point to and say, “There is your standard”.
Thanks for this information. It helps.

Posted by: Cole at December 19, 2005 10:38 PM
Comment #104612

Cole:

Legal and or justifiable under the constitution. I do not know how we the public will be able to make a determination without specifics that are classified. Jay Rockefellor had clearly expressed some concerns in 2003 about the program to Cheney. It seems that some of his concerns were the lack of ability to consult with others including legal counsel.

This one looks tough to me.

Craig

Posted by: craig holmes at December 19, 2005 11:17 PM
Comment #104614

Great post JayJay!

I had no idea that a provision could allow surveillance to start prior to a court order even being requested. I mean think about it, you can start listening in and still have 3 DAYS to request a warrant. That just makes it that much more despicable. Not only should the adminstration be ashamed so should the senate leaders on both sides who were told what was going on.

The main defense, and only for that matter, given for these taps was “red tape” and if pressed for time terriorists could get away with whatever they were planning. That looks like BS to me given the fact that they could still listen in and pursue a court order after the fact.

I hope the hearings promised by Arlen Specter happen and aren’t stalled in commitee.This is something the senate needs full disclosure on. I’m also thinking there is more to why they skipped the court than the reason they gave us.

Bush has crossed the line alot in my opinion but this is the most flagrant abuse of authority yet. I’m a pretty creative guy and I can’t even think how the gop will spin this one but I’m sure they try.

Posted by: Jeff Gannon at December 19, 2005 11:26 PM
Comment #104619

Cole and Jeff: what makes you think that the Bush eavesdropping measure is being used INSTEAD of issuing warrants in the standard way rather than in addtion to it?

I’ve heard nothing to suggest that the usual practices have been jettisoned and that warrants from a judge are no longer being sought and granted.

Instead, it sounds like Bush has provided law enforcement with an additional and very narrowly defined mechanism that can be used to head off rapidly developing potential attacks.

All it involves is allowing law enforcement to monitor communications BETWEEN those in this country, including American citizens, and those outside the country if there are indications that overseas terror organizations may be involved.

It does NOT allow monitoring communications within the country, and it’s a highly provisional. There are a whole host of hurdles to be cleared before this single narrowly-defined mechanism can kick into effect. Not the least of which is that it must be renewed by the President every 45 days as an emergency power.

This is hardly “absolute power” to monitor everybody or anybody, and it’s mere existence doesn’t mean that it it’s the only mechanism law enforcement is relying on instead of the slower usual processes.

Posted by: sanger at December 19, 2005 11:46 PM
Comment #104631

The scenario: a suspected suitcase bomber is roaming New York City. He’s an American citizen who is known to have trained at an Al Qaida camp.

He carries several cell phones already and buys a new one every few days, and he has several email accounts, all of which are being monitored under an authorization for a roving-wire tap which (for now) is still permitted under the Patriot Act.

Law enforcement does not wish to issue search or arrest warrants at this time because this individual has yet to make contact with associates and is not believed to have yet taken delivery of his suitcase bomb.

Shocking Fact: The Democrats believe that this is violation of our civil liberties—law enforcement should not be allowed to monitor all of his communications with a roving wire tap or with secret warrants. They are even willing to fillibuster in the Senate to preserve this individual’s right to privacy.

Scenario Continued: This individual meets with five other individuals, all American citizens, in a parking lot at midnight.

Under Bush’s eavesdropping order, law enforcement officials decide to listen to the telephone conversations on that very night by these additional individuals, for whom no warrants have yet been issued.

Some of these phone calls are domestic. Law enforcement has no authority to listen to these under Bush’s order, so doesn’t. But some of these calls are to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and law enforcement officials decide to listen in.

Shocking Fact: the Democrats believe that all of this is highly illegal behavior—by law enforcement officials. And they will stop at nothing to assure that phone calls by American citizens who have met with a suspected Al Qaida terrorist are off limits to law enforcement officials.

An unlikely scenario? Perhaps, but the very kind of scenario that this measure is anticipating and preparing for, and we have no reason to believe that the measure has been put in place for anything BUT this kind of scenario, or that it’s been used so far for anything else.

Posted by: sanger at December 20, 2005 12:23 AM
Comment #104632

Excellent article, Snowman!
“Trust Me” — it’s a real laugh at this point, isn’t it?

John Dean (who as we know, understands a thing or two about this kind of situation) thinks that Bush has basically admitted to an impeachable offense. And true to form for her lovely and righteous self, Barbara Boxer is now taking the bold step of being the first Senator raise the word Impeachment in regards to our sad clown of a president.
Also true to form these days, The Raw Story is the one who is breaking this news first.
Also, they are claiming that The NYT will be setting off another info bomb tomorrow with this story: FBI watched array of environmental, animal, and poverty groups.
I’m starting to wonder if I should be paranoid now…
But jeeze — even Vegan groups and The Catholic Worker are now suspect in our Brave New Neocon World — the latter because they “advocate a communist distribution of resources”! Best quote from that link though is this:
“You look at these documents,” said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the ACLU, “and you think wow, we have really returned to the days of J. Edgar Hoover.”
Bloody amazing…

Hooray for the ACLU!

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2005 12:32 AM
Comment #104634

Adrienne, Barbara Boxer would hardly be the first senator to raise the word “impeachment,” since John Kerry, Kennedy and that former Klansman from West Virginia have already done so multiple times.

Raw Story has broken many other stories first too—such as the indictment many weeks ago of Karl Rove… oops.

Posted by: sanger at December 20, 2005 12:41 AM
Comment #104636

Almost forgot. You guys should definitely read that Jonathan Alter Newsweek piece that is linked to in the first post in this thread. I actually came here intending to share that article, but “scarp” had already beat me to the punch.
(Hey, scarp! Welcome to Watchblog! :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2005 12:43 AM
Comment #104641
Also, they are claiming that The NYT will be setting off another info bomb tomorrow with this story: FBI watched array of environmental, animal, and poverty groups.

Adrienne,
The President has skated by so far because of the Repulicans controlling Congress. But libertarian leaning Republicans have already sided with the Dems on this issue. If it is true that bush was spying on domestic interest groups and it comes out, I don’t see anyway that his remaining supporters will be able to justify his actions.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 20, 2005 12:55 AM
Comment #104642

And that the NSA of all agencies, which has a mandate to strictly surveil only foreign targets in foreign countries, is being used—not one administration in the history of the NSA has had the termerity to do that.

From what I have read, a number of NSA people have quit over this—just as FEMA people, DOJ people, State Dept. people and CIA people have quit because they can’t stand the arrogance of this president. The brain drain in key government departments is an untold story here.

Posted by: Tim Crow at December 20, 2005 1:09 AM
Comment #104646

There are some interesting points being made over at talkingpointsmemo.com, regarding a possible new technology being used to surveil, which would make it difficult getting individual warrants. They (the NSA) may be looking for a name, a phone number, or a series of words and may be doing it by mining various data bases.

Posted by: Tim Crow at December 20, 2005 1:36 AM
Comment #104647

Betty:

We hardly knew ye!!

Posted by: Tim Crow at December 20, 2005 1:38 AM
Comment #104714
There are a whole host of hurdles to be cleared before this single narrowly-defined mechanism can kick into effect. Not the least of which is that it must be renewed by the President every 45 days as an emergency power.

So every 45 days, Bush has to give himself permission to keep doing what he wants to do. How is that a check on his power, exactly? By that standard, Saddam Hussein had a check on his power too — if he ever decided to stop being an evil dictator, he wouldn’t “renew” his powers.

Historical is full of examples of tyrants who declared a “state of emergency” and never undeclared it. I’m not saying that Bush has become a lawless tyrant, but perperpetually declaring an “emergency” is a lousy argument in his defense!!!

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 20, 2005 5:57 AM
Comment #104719

Why do I see the REPs getting so outraged at the NYT for writing their article? HOW DARE THE PRESS EXPOSE VITAL NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION?!?!?!?


Shhheeeeesh. Chill out and ask Novak. He seems to have the process down.

(Except Novak exposed a CIA agent for no real value…)

Posted by: tony at December 20, 2005 7:04 AM
Comment #104735

Here is the answer to your scenario Sanger. Go ahead and do all the survalliance you need. Than go get a court order retroactivaly. Just make sure to do it within 72 hours after tou start. If the matter is that urgent I’m sure it won’t be a problem. WOw really cut the drama out of your “24” episode.

As far as the patriot act dying the Democrats wanted to extend it 90 days while the senate tweaked it, but the Republicans played politics and killed it instead.

Posted by: Jeff Gannon at December 20, 2005 8:28 AM
Comment #104736

Jay-jay:

There’s also this in FISA:


CHAPTER 36—FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

Which means that the President can evesdrop on American citizens freely for 15 days at a time of the beginning of a war. After that, he’s REQUIRED to obtain court approval.

The question is:
Why did he do this? It was completely avoidable. He had all of the tools and provisions in place to get what he needed. He just needed to follow the letter of the law.

Posted by: John Trevisani at December 20, 2005 8:53 AM
Comment #104796

Adrienne,
“You guys should definitely read that Jonathan Alter Newsweek piece that is linked to in the first post in this thread.”


Boycotted Newsweek and the NY Times. They both should be tried for sedition!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 20, 2005 11:03 AM
Comment #104798

Adrienne wrote:

Hooray for the ACLU.

Please advise if that comment was how you actually feel or was it done with tongue in cheek? I would really like to know.

thank you

Posted by: dodge at December 20, 2005 11:04 AM
Comment #104852

sanger:
“Adrienne, Barbara Boxer would hardly be the first senator to raise the word “impeachment,” since John Kerry, Kennedy and that former Klansman from West Virginia have already done so multiple times.”

Yeah, but I think those guys were just awestruck by the sheer enormity of Bush’s Big Wheel O’ Impeachable Offenses, without knowing whether they’d be able to land on the winner. Sen. Boxer was too smart to play that game — she’s spoken up now because she’s been doing her research.

“Raw Story has broken many other stories first too—such as the indictment many weeks ago of Karl Rove… oops.”

No, that was Libby. Rove they knew had a lawyer who was trying to pull a fast one. Btw, don’t count your chickenhawks before they hatch — we may yet see a Rove indictment.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2005 12:03 PM
Comment #104863

“Trust Me” is a non-issue with this president. He is a crook descended from a long line of crooks. The 2000 election, the Texas rangers deal, Arbusto, Specter 7, Harken Oil, etc.

http://www.rense.com/general60/enero.htm,
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/News/oneilscandal.htm

Posted by: ray at December 20, 2005 12:20 PM
Comment #104865

JayJay:
“The President has skated by so far because of the Repulicans controlling Congress. But libertarian leaning Republicans have already sided with the Dems on this issue.”

It’s rather like the straw thats broken the camels back, is it not? I think too that a certain percentage of these Republicans are scared sh*tless about their chances in the ‘06 elections. If they keep going along with the idea that the Neocon’s can act like a dictators, they may not get enough votes to keep their seats.

“If it is true that bush was spying on domestic interest groups and it comes out, I don’t see anyway that his remaining supporters will be able to justify his actions.”

You’d think so, wouldn’t you? But fear has way of making some people immediately throw up their hands in surrender, rather than kick their brains into overdrive. And it’s been guiding some of these folks for so long now that it seems you just never know how they’re going to react, or what more they’ll consider justifiable.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2005 12:21 PM
Comment #104870

Good points Woody, tony and John.

I wrote:
“Hooray for the ACLU!”

“Please advise if that comment was how you actually feel or was it done with tongue in cheek? I would really like to know.”

It is really how I feel. In fact, I’m a proud card carrying member of the ACLU.

“thank you”

You’re welcome! :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2005 12:26 PM
Comment #104906

John,

That’s a good point. The President renews the program every 45 days, he said himself he has renewed it over 30 times. That means he has approved it for over 1350 days minus the 15 days it was legal = 1335 days he has been acting outside the law. The biggest question is going to be though, why did he authorize spying without getting the warrant, esp after all possible hurdles had been removed from the process? The only answer I can think of is that he was spying on people that he knew would not be able to justify to the FISA court, because they had no link to terrorist. So who was he really spying on? Without that warrant we may never know for sure.

Why do I see the REPs getting so outraged at the NYT for writing their article? HOW DARE THE PRESS EXPOSE VITAL NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION?!?!?!?

I’m not sure either. The NYT has been sitting on this information for over a year at the request of the White House. Two weeks prior to publishing the information, the President had a meeting with the editors to try to kill the article. If the President was really so concerned about national security, one would think he could whip up one of his Executive Orders to stop it from being published, or go to the FISA court and have a gag order put on the NYT (although I guess he couldn’t go to the FISA court, because it would have been revealed to the court that he had been breaking the law). Was it because the info that the NYT had was not really about national security at all?
The question is did the NYT report the whole story, or just some of it? If they do come out with a story about spying on domestic interest groups with no ties to terrorist, then we will have our answer. We will just have to wait and see what the whole story is.


It’s rather like the straw thats broken the camels back, is it not?

Adreinne,

It really is. People are starting to come down with “Scandal Fatigue”. The Repubs in congress are going to want to distance themselves as much as possible from the President, if they hope to win in 2006. That may mean that they will be forced to take action against him. There will of course be those that will follow him blindly no matter what. We will just have to wait and see if the voters treat them kindly in 2006.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 20, 2005 1:03 PM
Comment #104969

JayJay and tony, I agree. Seems to me that the NYT has some serious ‘splaining to do.

Great article on just some of the questions raised by this at one of my favorite sites, Attytood:
The Big Stall: How Bush gamed the media to get re-elected in 2004
Also, check this out: Things We Knew A Year Ago
Those are all the reasons why we shouldn’t believe Keller at the Times when he claims their senior editors were “assured” when Bush begged him to hold off on reporting this story because “a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions”. (I’d really like to know what the hell that is supposed to mean, wouldn’t you?)

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2005 2:49 PM
Comment #104974

Jay Jay:

“Scandal Fatigue”, that’s an excellent point. The GOP death by a thousand cuts—in this case, 993 of them are self-inflicted.

Posted by: Tim Crow at December 20, 2005 2:52 PM
Comment #104989

A lot of people here just amaze me. You don’t have all of the info you need to make a decision. All of the evidence is not yet in. The investigation has not even started, and you already have the prez. tried - convicted - impeached - and in prison. Simply amazing.

Posted by: dodge at December 20, 2005 3:14 PM
Comment #104999

Sanger,

Three points and a question:

1) The NSA has approval to start eavesdropping on domestic suspects without first getting approval. Just FYI, the approval process has three tiers - meaning that if the NSA is not approved to wiretap someone in the US, they can appeal that decision up to an appeals court and eventually to the Supreme Court. The entire process usually takes less than 48 hours…while surveillance proceeds without interruption.

2) Over the past 30 years, the NSA has been denied approval to spy domestically less than 10 times…out of thousands of requests. There doesn’t exactly seem to be a need for going outside the restrictions of existing law. The process, after all, seems to accomodate requests from the NSA quite liberally.

3) How does acknowledgment of NSA surveillance - whether judicially approved or in secret - harm existing operations? Don’t the people invovled with terrorism assume that their communications are being monitored?

The real question is: Why, if the process of getting approval is within the law and relatively easy to obtain, does the President NEED to allow secret surveillance of communications within the US? After all, it’s not hard to get in the first place…and surveillance operations can continue until judicial approval is granted.

The behavior of the Bush Administration and NSA beg the question as to whether or not Bush directed the NSA to monitor communications from perfectly honorable US citizens who just happen to oppose White House policies.

Nixon did it. He’s why these laws were enacted in the first place.

Posted by: DUSCHENEAU at December 20, 2005 3:27 PM
Comment #105010

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

Here’s an article that explains things quite well. The main points of the article indicate that:

1) approval for domestic surveillance has been denied only 4 times out of tens of thousands of requests.

2) the judicial review and approval process was often completed within hours of the original request.

3) surveillance can start without a warrant and continue for 72 hours which is more than enough time to gain judicial approval.

Posted by: DUSCHENEAU at December 20, 2005 3:43 PM
Comment #105021

Okay you guys, here it is:
House Judiciary Democrats issue report alleging gross misconduct by Bush over Iraq
Link to the full Conyer’s report in pdf form at the bottom of that page.


Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2005 3:55 PM
Comment #105058

Have all of you considered the fact that NSA is probably monitoring this web site since it is the gathering place of the liberal enemy. The revelations by Bush that he has authorized spying on US citizens, but only those that are potential threats, begs the question as to what a threat has to be to make a person land on the NSA list. Most of the real die hard conservative friends I have refer to liberals and democrats as the enemy. I’m sure Bush thinks along these lines and this is the reason he and his advisors didn’t want any oversight from the judicial branch. How nice to consider that those of us expressing our freedom of speech are now potential targets for NSA search and categorizing. For those of you that are proud card carrying members of the ACLU well congratulations you probably made it into the NSA database as soon as Bush authorized the surveillance.

Posted by: RJacob at December 20, 2005 4:41 PM
Comment #105077

RJacob:
“For those of you that are proud card carrying members of the ACLU well congratulations you probably made it into the NSA database as soon as Bush authorized the surveillance.”

Yeah, but so what? Like others before me, I’d still rather be a martyr for American rights and freedom than ever be a slave to safety.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2005 5:03 PM
Comment #105085

Adrienne

You shame me. Here I was thinking about switching to the Republican party and getting my NRA membership just to keep the NSA from snooping on me.

Posted by: RJacob at December 20, 2005 5:14 PM
Comment #105106

RJ,
Don’t mind me. I was just using your post as an excuse to refresh everyones memory with that amazing speech. ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2005 5:37 PM
Comment #105133
Okay you guys, here it is: House Judiciary Democrats issue report alleging gross misconduct by Bush over Iraq Link to the full Conyer’s report in pdf form at the bottom of that page.

Thank you Adrienne. I just finished reading all 273 pages of the Investigative Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff’s “The Constitution In Crises”. The report does point out all the lying and abuses the whole Bush administration has done re: the Lies that Led to war, and I hope they follow the recommendations in Chapter 5 and Impeach the lot of them.

Posted by: Pat at December 20, 2005 6:36 PM
Comment #105173

When did this become a forum for Bush propaganda? Go call Rush Limbaugh, or Fux “News” with that crap. Bush will be responsible for more American deaths in Iraq than were killed on 9/11 before he’s done. 1000 more days, our death toll in iraq will probably be about 4000 unless somebody stops it.

YAHOO Adrienne for the Liberty or Death link.

Posted by: ray at December 20, 2005 8:18 PM
Comment #105174

Pat:
“I just finished reading all 273 pages of the Investigative Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff’s “The Constitution In Crises”. The report does point out all the lying and abuses the whole Bush administration has done re: the Lies that Led to war, and I hope they follow the recommendations in Chapter 5 and Impeach the lot of them.”

Absolutely, Pat. As I said the other day in another thread, there is actually a long list of offenses — and any one of them will do.
But speaking strictly to the topic of this thread, check this out. Its a page a friend of mine sent me as a link, regarding Nixon’s impeachment. Scroll down to article 2 (about three quarters of the way down the page). I honestly think that most of it could just be cut and pasted right into Bush’s impeachment document due to his latest offense!

Lug:
“So, the program is legal and effective.”

What Bush authorized was/is illegal. Period. He could have easily done what he wanted to do legally, but chose not to. There can be no excuse for this. NONE.
Btw, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the entire NSA program is illegal or ineffective.

“Just whose side are they on?”

The side of America, of course. The side of freedom and civil rights as outlined by our Constitution.

What side are you on if you would allow our president to break the law and violate his Constitutional oath?
What side are you on if you’d abdicate a single one of your Constitutional rights and freedoms, or allow any of your fellow citizen’s to be violated without speaking out about it?

ray:
“YAHOO Adrienne for the Liberty or Death link.”

Awesome isn’t it? My whole life I’ve gotten a thrill out of reading that speech. And it’s so apt at the moment, I couldn’t resist sharing it.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2005 8:32 PM
Comment #120015

This is us another example of this presidency twisting and turning the Constitution to fit into their needs. They lie to get a response they can get what they need. Like with GOOGLE saying that they are trying to stop child porn and need to know what people are surfing on the internet. When google has taken steps to prevent that from happening. The fact is that America is in many wars, everyday the freedooms we have is being taken away form us, not by a outside source but by our own government.

But you might not know it but government and corportations are joing forces to spy on americans. They collect billions of pieces of information such as phone records, financial statements and GPA’s to track what we do to make an profile on who we are. The fact of the matter this may be the most free, unfree country on the planet.

Posted by: Bog Dogg at February 3, 2006 9:10 AM
Post a comment