With all respect, it seems that the certain groups have been successful at obviscating and blurring the essentials of the wiretap issue.
With that said; let me take my swing at it...
The argument that Presidential Power overshadows the scope of FIZA is mute; whomever framed the FIZA statutes took war into account when they intentionally placed in WAR TIME PROVISIONS of 15 days.
Another argument is that the FIZA process is too slow and to catch the terrorists requires FAST and FLEXABLE so FIZA unacceptably encumbers the process needed. We can eavesdrop on virtually every form of electronic communication WORLD WIDE at a moments notice, but we can't manage to have a computer automatically submit a retro-active request to the court in 15 days ???
Yet a further argument is that 'we only listen to people with known links to terrorists and our enemies'. First, HOW CAN WE KNOW THIS ? The adage 'Trust your government' doesn't hold water. Today it is the terrorists. Well, how about GreenPeace ? Some would consider them a terrorist group, so can we also listent in on them ? How about the ACLU ? How about a potential political opponent ? (oh, that's right, we already went down that road... ) Where does the line get drawn ?
Lastly; "Other presidents have done this also... " I would suggest that the entire proclamations of these past presidents be read IN FULL; especially the part just after the lines saying that domestic intelligence gathering can be done, where it continues to say ' within and following the statutes outlined but the Domestic Surveillance and FIZA statutes. (Thanks to CNN and MSNBC for doing so...)
My point is simple; FIZA was established to provide OVERSIGHT. OVERSIGHT is not telling 6 Congressmen, and then telling them that its illegal for them to discuss it with anyone. Why was FIZA circumvented ? To avoid OVERSIGHT. Why do we ship prisoners to other countries ? Because torture is illegal in the United States.
Just as the provision on torture and other Patriot Act elements that allow anyone that is considered a threat to be taken off the street without legal recourse. Is the next presidential opponent going to be considered a threat ? How can we know ?
People far wiser than me realized long ago that a government must be transparent and responsible to the public they serve. That begins and ends with OVERSIGHT. This particular administration has done a great deal to remove themselves from oversight under the guise of protecting us from the 'evil empires' and terrorists.
Remember Communism ?
- The government spys on it's citizens at will with no oversight
- Anyone disagreeing was considered ' un-patriotic '
- People were tourtured while in custody
- People were held in prison with no formal charges being brought
- People were 'disappeared' without legal recourse
It's odd that all the freedoms we used to hold so proud as Americans are now being eroded by our politicians under the guise of Patriotism. No wonder the rest of the world is no longer impressed by us.
A just man acts in the light of day, not scurries around under the cover of darkness and shadow.
Slashdot Mirror
With all respect, it seems that the certain groups have been successful at obviscating and blurring the essentials of the wiretap issue. With that said; let me take my swing at it... The argument that Presidential Power overshadows the scope of FIZA is mute; whomever framed the FIZA statutes took war into account when they intentionally placed in WAR TIME PROVISIONS of 15 days. Another argument is that the FIZA process is too slow and to catch the terrorists requires FAST and FLEXABLE so FIZA unacceptably encumbers the process needed. We can eavesdrop on virtually every form of electronic communication WORLD WIDE at a moments notice, but we can't manage to have a computer automatically submit a retro-active request to the court in 15 days ??? Yet a further argument is that 'we only listen to people with known links to terrorists and our enemies'. First, HOW CAN WE KNOW THIS ? The adage 'Trust your government' doesn't hold water. Today it is the terrorists. Well, how about GreenPeace ? Some would consider them a terrorist group, so can we also listent in on them ? How about the ACLU ? How about a potential political opponent ? (oh, that's right, we already went down that road... ) Where does the line get drawn ? Lastly; "Other presidents have done this also... " I would suggest that the entire proclamations of these past presidents be read IN FULL; especially the part just after the lines saying that domestic intelligence gathering can be done, where it continues to say ' within and following the statutes outlined but the Domestic Surveillance and FIZA statutes. (Thanks to CNN and MSNBC for doing so...) My point is simple; FIZA was established to provide OVERSIGHT. OVERSIGHT is not telling 6 Congressmen, and then telling them that its illegal for them to discuss it with anyone. Why was FIZA circumvented ? To avoid OVERSIGHT. Why do we ship prisoners to other countries ? Because torture is illegal in the United States. Just as the provision on torture and other Patriot Act elements that allow anyone that is considered a threat to be taken off the street without legal recourse. Is the next presidential opponent going to be considered a threat ? How can we know ? People far wiser than me realized long ago that a government must be transparent and responsible to the public they serve. That begins and ends with OVERSIGHT. This particular administration has done a great deal to remove themselves from oversight under the guise of protecting us from the 'evil empires' and terrorists. Remember Communism ? - The government spys on it's citizens at will with no oversight - Anyone disagreeing was considered ' un-patriotic ' - People were tourtured while in custody - People were held in prison with no formal charges being brought - People were 'disappeared' without legal recourse It's odd that all the freedoms we used to hold so proud as Americans are now being eroded by our politicians under the guise of Patriotism. No wonder the rest of the world is no longer impressed by us. A just man acts in the light of day, not scurries around under the cover of darkness and shadow.