Slashdot Mirror
NSA Wiretapping Whistleblower
Kagu writes "ABC News is running a short piece about an interview with former NSA Employee Russell Tice and his allegations that the NSA wiretaps are more pervasive than believed and used in ways he believes violated the law. "
A lot more info on this subject, including a transcript of the interview of Russell Tice by Amy Goodman, can be found here.
From the interview:
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
In fact, there are commercially available engines out there that anyone can buy. Check out Collexis, which also has demos online. This isn't as advanced as what the analysts at the NSA are using but it's close. Plug something like this into ontology software such as Cerebra and you've got a decent tool for keeping dossiers on people.
Nothing about this is illegal until the information passed into it is acquired illegally. Like most people, I'm a little more than annoyed that our civil liberties are slowly ebbing. One thing I've learned from history is that freedom and liberties are often the hardest things to find once you've lost them.
Recently, I've relied on the ACLU and certain political groups to jump all over the president and anyone who is part of the government if they overstep these bounds. I sure hope Tice gets his wish to reform the intelligence community as to how they handle wiretapping Americans. They can wiretap everyone else in the world but I don't want our government wiretapping us without the usual requisite warrants.
Side note on Tice, I kind of admire him for doing this. He's not going to go to jail because he's (intelligently) not revealed anything classified. He's only saying that this is going on. Now, I hope he's prepared to not work there anymore because I imagine the rest of his career is going to be fairly cold with people treating him like a snitch.
My work here is dung.
It doesn't bother me that they want to wiretap suspected terrorists, but why the no-warrant stuff? Can't they just get a classified warrant? I wouldn't care at all except that they appear to be going around the law that I had thought applied to everyone. I guess it applies to everyone except for enemies of the state, or anyone that is unfortunate enough to be flagged as one. For instance, that professor corresponding with his friend in the Phillipines that had his mail opened, read and re-sealed. Isnt' that a federal offense?
stuff |
I think that the only way to get to the bottom of such serious allegations is to investigate the evidence. Perhaps if we could secretly intercept the communications between the administration and the NSA we might find out what is really going on.
Don't put off until tomorrow what you can leave until the day after.
"If you picked the word 'jihad' out of a conversation," Tice said, "the technology exists that you focus in on that conversation, and you pull it out of the system for processing." According to Tice, intelligence analysts use the information to develop graphs that resemble spiderwebs linking one suspect's phone number to hundreds or even thousands more.
It can be argued that people who don't want to have their conversations monitored will not use keywords such as these that tip off the eavesdroppers or technology that recognizes them.
And conversely, people may use meaningless conversations with many keywords to delay the processing of these investigations.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
American citizens were spied on without warrant all the time!
They may be illegally listening to average americans, but that's illegal as a technicality.
Bullshit. It's either legal or illegal. The phrase 'illegal as a technicality' makes about as much sense as 'pregnant as a technicality'.
If you're listened to by the NSA, who cares really?
I CARE. I have a fundamental right to privacy, like every other American citizen. The argument of 'if you're innocent, you have nothing to fear' is a recipe for oppression.
YOU'RE NOT THEIR TARGET
Not yet, anyway...
It's illegality on a technicality like sharing music with friends so they can go buy their own copy of a CD. Not immoral and not reprehensible.
Really? I think the RIAA might take issue with you on that. What a perfect refutation of your entire argument.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Nothing was stopping Bush from doing this in a legal manner. NOTHING.
Bush, during campaign 2004 repeatedly told the American people he would never do such a thing, even with the mis-named Patriot Act in place.
Bush Logic: Since the Terorrists hate our freedoms, perhaps we should take away the freedom of Americans. That will show that Bin Laden.
Bush, worst president in US History.
Anyway, this is a very old problem in a new disguise. It used to be the case that most of your personal information was locked up inside your head, and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was very powerful. The secondary protections against warrentless search were also good, though less critical. Because of modern recording technologies, a vast amount of our personal information is becoming externalized, and the amount is increasing all of the time. If we are to have any meaningful privacy, we need to do something.
I think the thing we need to do is actually pretty obvious, though I don't know if we'll get there. I think we need to clarify that your personal information belongs to YOU, and that should include your right to store your personal records on your own equipment. Given that situation, your privacy would be protected by the privacy rules you put on your own storage devices--and you could change your mind at any time, revealing more or less information for any reason. Possession in nine points of the law.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
What makes all of this so much more painful to me is that the old intelligence system was turning up the information required. Terrorists were nabbed at the borders, and so on. The New York bombings were on the radar. It wasn't a lack of information that was the problem, it was a lack of analysis. How does taping a hundred, a thousand, a million more telephone conversations help? All of this information has to be mined, but each extraction that is not related to the criminal case comes at the expense of someone's rights.
We HAD a system that was balancing individual rights with the need for surveillance*, it was working in the sense that good information was being found without tapping one phone in 300.
Now, the barn is on fire and everyone seems to want to spray water on the house.
*Need for surveillance -- I'm not convinced that the level of big brother spying conducted before the attacks was warranted. Frankly, the FISA courts scare the hell out of me. I don't like secret warrants more than gag orders or secret laws. I was willing to accept them -- part of the great compromise of democracy -- but they look like they were the slippery slope to today.
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
Tracing calls inbound or outbound to known terrorist phone numbers, in itself is probable-cause, no?
I'd say it is. I don't think anyone would disagree. Either you're intentionally missing the point in order to troll or you're just ignorant.
The point is the NSA needs A WARRANT to do the tap. Hell, FISA lets them get a retroactive warrant for up to 72 hours after the fact. What is stopping Bush & Co. from getting a warrant from a secret court that has never denied a single warrant application in all of 2004? Its very likely that they had no probable cause to monitor these people.
Just another non-issue.
Apparently the 4th amendment is a "non-issue".
SIGINT officer? Do they also have SIGHUP officer? ... :-)
Well, as long as they don't send you a SIGKILL officer
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
The FISA court denied a total of 4 requests betwen 1979 and 2004, out of thousands. The could have gotten the wiretap order if the wiretap was done for legitimate reasons, or on a person they could reasonably suspect. If it was emergency, they could apply up to 72 hours after the beginning of the surveillance.
There's no valid reason to have done things like this. Orders were clearly legally required, and if they weren't obtainable for some reason, the Bush administration should have sought changes to the law, not ignored the law. That's not how the US works. And since you want to make this a Democat/Republican issue, when did the GOP become the party of violating the law whenever it wants to, without any expectation of punishment? Do you think because Bush is a Republican, he gets the power to just decide he doesn't need to follow a given law if it suits him? I know you'd be howling if Clinton had done the same thing (and don't say he did, because the single thing you can legitimately point to in that regard [the Ames case], was a physical intrusion that wasn't covered by FISA till 1995).
Whether it is or not is a determination to be made by a court, not an instrument of the executive branch or the Chief Executive himself. If the Adminstration cannot be bothered to even go through the motions of using the FSIA Court where warrants are virtually never turned down, and can be sometimes asked for AFTER an intercept in emergent cirucmstances, then the Adminstration must view itself as beyond the scope of the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is dangerous, unprecedented and should not be tolerated.
Under our system of justice, the ends (i.e., you're talking to Al Quaeda, so the government should listen) do not justify the means (i.e., let's not get a warrant, let's just listen). This fundammental concept is twice enshrined in our Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
On a very basic level this clause reflects a judgment that when the government wishes to act in certain ways, it must follow certain procedures; that is, provide an accused with what has been called "Due Process of Law." Sometimes the question of the extent of what process is due can be hotly debated. There is no debate, however, that the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures requrires that the police obtain a warrant from a judicial officer before such a search can take place. The Adminsitration no doubt is aware of this, but has chosen to ignore it.
It also ignores (not just here, but in other instances) that the Constitution regards the "process," of justice is so important, that in cases where the government fails to give an accused Due Process and obtains evidence in defiance of the accused's Constitutional rights, such evidence will not be allowed to be used in the prosecution (the "Exclusionary Rule"). Again, the administration ignores this judgment by our Constitutional Founders (which makes W's insitance on "Strict Constructionists" for the SCOTUS somewhat hilariously ironic) that individual guilty men may, in fact, go free, to protect the integrity of the system and insure that the executive respects the law it is charged to enforce. The is supposed to serve as a deterrent to instruments of the executive (police, FBI, etc.) to follow the system of checks and balances by, for example, asking a judicial officer for a warrant before (of, in the case of the FSIA, sometimes even after) executing a Fourth Amendment search.
Bush Lies On the Record.
"Disbelieve whatever the President says and believe whatever his enemies say"
That's the trouble when you lie sometimes. Not only do people disbelieve you all the time, they start believing your enemies. Which is why its a bad idea to lie in the long run.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I would argue that the second that you interact with another person, organization, or any other entity with legal rights, that the information is no longer solely yours to control. If you buy something from me, then who owns the information about that transfer?
When you load slashdot, you handing bytes to your ISP requesting that they hand it to several of their peers, then have those peers hand it back to you. Who "owns" those exchanges?
One of these wiretaps was able to stop a guy by the name of Iman Ferris who was plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.
And he reported that there was no way they could do it -- there was too much security. And, btw, where's the evidence that this guy was caught via the wiretaps in question? He was arrested by NYC police, not by federal agents. And there appears to be no information about him beyond this one CNN transcript.
There's been absolutely no explanation for why Bush couldn't use the FISA court, just as it was intended to be used. Except that, for some reason, he doesn't think the 4th amendment applies. Despite repeated US Supreme Court rulings stating exactly the opposite thing.
BTW, there's absolutely no evidence that the FISA court is obstructing the Administration's requests. Just go look at the reports yourself.
2004 -- 1758 applied for, 3 withdrawn, 1 withdrawn and re-applied for, 1754 approved, 0 denied, 94 modified (don't ask me about the discrepency; it's in the report)
2003 -- 1727 applied for, 1724 approved, 4 denied, 1 re-approved after denial, 79 modified
2002 -- 1228 applied for, 1226 approved, 2 denied, 2 appealed and approved, none listed as modified
2001 -- 932 applied for, 934 approved (2 from December 2000), 2 modified
I didn't bother looking back further than that, since it's not relevant to Bush's post-9/11 activities. Which just makes his abridgement of the 4th amendment and SCOTUS rulings that much more questionable.
Mark my words, this will turn into a constitutional crisis, especially if Bush and Chaney are not impeached for their wrongdoing
You're a little confused. The constitutional crisis would come because of some lame impeachment campaign along those lines. By the way... how do you feel about the Democrat members of the congressional and senate committees who are regularly tuned into this sort of thing? How did you feel about it when the previous administration backed up the very same type of authority and action? For example, here's Clinton's deputy Attorney General (Jamie Gorelick) testifying before the House Permanent Select Commitee on Intelligence in 1994:
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general..." She added that the same authority pertains to electronic surveilance such as wiretaps.
How about Jimmy Carter? Should he have been impeached? In 1978 his Attorney General (Griffin B. Bell) testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two US men suspected of spying for the Vietnamese government.
Were you listening, in 1994, when Clinton used his regular radio address to discuss a new policy of using warrantless searches in particularly violent US public housing developments? No?
Using intel about Al Queda associates to track down who is calling them (or being called by them) when some of those calls terminate in the US is fundamental stuff. Not using every means to track that stuff would be a dereliction. Specific warrants covering every twist and turn of electronic communications being used by someone who calls a rotating, daily-changing array of disposable cell phones is essentially impossible. That's why the NSA's data mining is so appropriate in this case, and the CinC is absolutely correct to authorize its use. When an Al Queda safe house in Pakistan is raided, and a seized laptop includes lists of phone numbers in the Middle East, we need to be able to immediately, and persistenly follow up on any call from the US that reaches out to those same numbers, and follow the trail of other people who are calling those people, especially from overseas. But you can't list that stuff in a warrant because you don't (and can't) know it in advance.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Also known as the 4th amendment.
Yeah, of course the Predsident can do pretty much what he wants. It's just that when Bush constantly says 'trust me' and he turns out wrong time and time and time and time again, and lies about what he's doing, it's time to stop allowing a person like bush and the neocon cabal full authority without checks and balances.
Bush's Lie and Breaking of the Constitution:
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Monkey in Cheif = Liar.
I think you're on a quixotic quest. Consider that the surveillance camera is not a camera - it's someone who recognized you. Do you have the right to keep them from testifying unless you want to should you ever be on trial? No - information about your whereabouts in a public place is in the public domain. The problem is in the past you had to rely on random chance to find someone who would recognize you. Now, however, the information "out there" can be stored, replicated, and collated.
There are a lot of troubling concerns here. In a cash economy your purchases can't be tracked without intrusion. In a credit card economy your purchases are tracked by definition. You seem to want to have the benefits of technology and yet the benefits of no technology at the same time. My real point is that some of this loss of private information is utterly inseperable from the advances that we have in technology.
If you live alone in the woods, no one can know where are you are at a given time. If you live in a big city lots of people know, but they don't talk so it remains disconnected data, not actionable information. If you live in a small town less people know, but they tend to talk, and so everyone actually has information on your whereabouts - not just data. There's no law or technology acting in any of these cases, but your level of privacy fluctuates based on the nature of the society in which you live. Technology is changing our society - thus it will change our level of privacy.
There are pros and cons to this. You list bad examples - reasons you want your information private. And they are valid. But consider medical emergencies. I'm allergic to morphine, but I have no PCP right now. If I were injured and taken to a hospital and they were able to scan my fingerprints and access my medical records they would know not to give me morphine. As it is - they're going to have to find out the hard way I'm allergic. If it was a fatal allergy (it's not) that would suck for me.
So in response to your "private information is mine" ideology I reply: no it's not and it never was. It has nothing to do with government or technology - it started the moment there were three or more thinking human beings on the planet. You have to dump the utterly unrealistic notion that you can somehow stop people from talking about you - and that's essentially what everything from surveillance cameras to credit card tracking is.
If you do that, then you can start to grapple with the actual implementations. I'm not saying we can't do anything about the fact that our private information is becoming rapidly more available. We can influence what is legal and what is not, what is allowed and what is not, and we should. But in order to be a part of the discussion you have to realize that *some* change is utterly inevitable. If you don't like big city anonymity - don't live in a big city. If you don't like small town gossip - don't live in a small town. Very few people are going to sympathize with someone who says "I love the small town feel, but I just hate that everyone knows what I'm doing". At least, not to the point where they would be willing to help you try to change it. The gossip is part and parcel with the small town feel - the two are inseperable. To somem extent, a digital trail is inseperable from a digital life in the same way.
You can't always have your cake and eat it too.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Here's an actual quote:
0 040420-2.html
"[T]here are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
President George W. Bush, 2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/2
This is breaking news in the Baltimore area this morning (and last night). For those of you are are defending Bush for ignoring the courts and ignoring the Constitution, based on the premise that the NSA is "only looking for terrorists" you may be surprised...
From NSA SPIES ON BALTIMORE QUAKERS
Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com
The National Security Agency has been spying on a Baltimore anti-war group, according to documents released during litigation, going so far as to document the inflating of protesters' balloons, and intended to deploy units trained to detect weapons of mass destruction, RAW STORY has learned. According to the documents, the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore, a Quaker-linked peace group, has been monitored by the NSA working with the Baltimore Intelligence Unit of the Baltimore City Police Department.
The actual court documents are online
And here's an interview with one of the primaries.
Granted, they didn't through them into Gitmo or anything (yet), but it's interesting because it's in zip code 21212, my own back yard ! (it's true what they say).
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
For example, here's Clinton's deputy Attorney General (Jamie Gorelick) testifying before the House Permanent Select Commitee on Intelligence in 1994:
Which lead to Executive Order 12949 on Feb 9, 1995 because he was told that this was not legal, but it was allowable to fall under the jurisdiction of FISA.
In 1978 his Attorney General (Griffin B. Bell) testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two US men suspected of spying for the Vietnamese government
Which lead to the creation of FISA, because SCOTUS deemed it to be unconstitutional without both Congressional authority (the creation of FISA) and judicial review (the FISA court itself).
Neither of which is analogous to the case before us now -- we have a redux of what Carter did in 1978, except that this time it's been ongoing for over 4 years and is in direct contradiction to the SCOTUS ruling that lead to the creation of FISA in the first place.
e need to be able to immediately, and persistenly follow up on any call from the US that reaches out to those same numbers, and follow the trail of other people who are calling those people, especially from overseas. But you can't list that stuff in a warrant because you don't (and can't) know it in advance.
And you don't need to. FISA allows for warrantless wiretaps for a limited duration -- as long as they're submitted to the FISA court for approval within 72 hours. Precisely what prevented Bush and the NSA from doing that? They've already increased FISA requests by over 70% since 9/11, and out of 5645 requests only 3 have been completely denied (an additional 3 denied, but then granted upon appeal or modification). I think you'd be hard pressed to find any other court that approves 99.95% of all warrants requested over four years (and that percentage is much higher if you go over the court's entire history -- prior to 2001 there was only 1 warrant denied w/o later approval by FISA).
In a cash economy your purchases can't be tracked without intrusion. In a credit card economy your purchases are tracked by definition.
I solved this one. I don't use my credit card for anything that couldn't be tracked anyway (phone bill, cable bill, etc). I'll be damned if my credit union and VISA are going to know what I'm eating this week, or what brand of toilet paper I use, how often I buy gas or where I drink and party.
You list bad examples - reasons you want your information private. And they are valid. But consider medical emergencies. I'm allergic to morphine, but I have no PCP right now. If I were injured and taken to a hospital and they were able to scan my fingerprints and access my medical records they would know not to give me morphine. As it is - they're going to have to find out the hard way I'm allergic. If it was a fatal allergy (it's not) that would suck for me.
There are other solutions to that problem that don't involve a big brother biometric database. Ever hear of a med alert bracelet? That said, on the surface a database of medical information like that seems like a good thing. But in reality it would be completely abused by the Government. Go look at your Health Insurance contract. I'll wager that it has a clause saying they can turn over information about you to the authorities. Since when did my medical information become something that could be used against me?
Take credit reports. Originally started so that banks would know something about who they were loaning money to. Now they've become a big database for Government officials to use to profile people and skip-tracers to use to track down people who don't want to be found. And before you say "That's what they are meant for" -- no, it's not. For every sap trying to hide from his creditors I'd wager that there's an abused woman trying to hide from her abusive ex who is going to track her down thanks to the wonders of the credit report. Well, perhaps it's not a 1:1 ratio, but it's still a concern.
Beyond that, go read the text of the fair credit reporting act sometime. Read the clauses that are in there for "National Security". As if national security depends on the Government knowing how many times I was late on my Capital One bill. Pfffft, I hate the information age and it's my livelihood!
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Congress is the only body that can declare war - it is in the constitution. Look it up sometime. You claim to have worked for the NSA, but are apparently ignorant of basic constitutional law. Every military action from the Korean war to Vietnam to the Gulf war was an authorized use of force by the congress, not a declaration of war.
The United States has not legally declared war since WWII. The congress authorized "the use of force" against IRAQ, but did not declare war.
It's the reason they couldn't prosecute Jane Fonda for treason during the Vietnam war - there was NO LEGAL STATE OF WAR - it was a "use of military force".
If they did declare war, they would be bound by the Geneva Convention, which would mean George Bush would be prosecuted as a war criminal for the torture at Abu-Garaib.
No declaration of war means no expanded war powers either.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0204a.asp
"under our system of government although the president is personally convinced that war against a certain nation is just and morally right, he is nevertheless prohibited by our supreme law of the land from waging it unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress. That was precisely why presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, who both believed that U.S. intervention in World Wars I and II was right and just, nevertheless had to wait for a congressional declaration of war before entering the conflict. And the fact that later presidents have violated the declaration-of-war requirement does not operate as a grant of power for other presidents to do the same.
What about the congressional resolution that granted President Bush the power to wage war against unnamed nations and organizations that the president determines were linked to the September 11 attacks? Doesn't that constitute a congressional declaration of war? No, it is instead a congressional grant to the president of Caesar-like powers to wage war, a grant that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to make.
Therefore, when a U.S. president wages what might otherwise be considered a just war, if he has failed to secure a congressional declaration of war, he is waging an illegal war -- illegal from the standpoint of our own legal and governmental system. And when the American people support any such war, no matter how just and right they believe it is, they are standing not only against their own principles and heritage, not only against their own system of government and laws, but also against the only barrier standing between them and the tyranny of their own government -- the Constitution."
You are such a coward that you disgust me. You will destroy everything that made this country great, the very Constitution that men fought and died for, because you're so scared of Osama Bin Laden. Read the words of a true American and a patriot in an editorial he wrote for the Miami Herald. Then maybe you can understand what it is to be an American:
AFTER 9/11
Fear destroys what bin Laden could not
ROBERT STEINBACK
One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.
If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.
Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat - - and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.
If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.
If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.
That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.
What is there to say now?
All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying "Happy Holidays' could be a disguised attack on Christianity.
I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.
Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to "protect us."
President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.
Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, "What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?"
Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the "war on terror" -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we st
Never forget that the first action that allowed Hitler to take dictatorial powers "above the law" was the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933 that was blamed on Communist terrorists, but perpetrated by the Nazi party. History has a way of repeating itself.
The Reichstag Fire Decree read: "Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Empire are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [ habeas corpus ], freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed." Sound familiar?
-Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither. -Ben Franklin
Gov't has only as much power as we let it have.
And you call the other guy "quixotic." That is ridiculously idealistic. Like all institutions, government's #1 goal is to increase its own range of influence and power. The people who work there are professionals, they work every day to increase their power. Voters have their own lives to worry about, in no way can they compete with people in government who are dedicated to increasing their power.
It is like buying a car - most people get fleeced because the salesman sells cars everyday, he knows all the tricks of the trade, all the ways that customers are easily fooled into paying too much. Meanwhile the average buyer makes a purchase once every couple of years, he's get less than 1/100th the time and resources that the salesman does. Sometimes a smart buyer will get the upperhand. But the salesman doesn't care, he knows that on average he'll come out on top.
The same thing with institutional government - the ocassional smart citizen, even smart special interest group, will be able to block an egregious power grab. But most citizens just simply do not have the time or resources to keep the power-grabbers in check 20% of the time, much less 100%.