Home /The Patriot act and privacy

The Patriot act and privacy

Submitted by dbcollies on Fri, 2005-12-16 15:28

The New Work Times is reporting today that President Bush authorized illegal wiretapping of US Citizens. This as Congress debates renewal of the Patriot Act.

You could argue that this timing is not accidental. I don't know if it is or not. What I do know is that it's time to examine the behavior of the leadership of this country. Bill Clinton was brought before impeachment hearings for lying under oath about having sex with Monica Lewinski. Let's look at Bush's record:

  • Went to war based on intelligence that had already been flagged as "questionable" to eliminate a regime that posed no provable threat
  • Guantanamo Bay
  • Abu Ghraib
  • Torture as an interrogation device (C. Rice's verbal dance around the issue is no better than Clinton's "it depends on the meaning of the word 'is'")

And now illegal wiretaps. Can anyone tell me why impeachment proceedings aren't underway yet? Or why anyone would trust this government with the kind of sweeping powers granted by the Patriot Act? (I hate that name, by the way. The "Patriot Act" is about the most UN-patriot thing I can think of. It flies in the face of the principals that this country was founded on)

[tag:wiretap] [tag:patriot act]

Categories: 
personal
politics
privacy

Comments

3
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2005-12-17 16:09

Because sex with an intern is far, far more despicable than playing with the lives of the military and of the citizens of your country.That's the what the argument I've heard boils down to. Not that I think that Clinton is not a jerk (although he had the good conscience to be abashed when Oprah asked about it), but the Clinton impeachment was ridiculous. It's between him and his wife.Apparently, lying about reasons for going to war, allowing 'the people' that you are claiming to protect to be spied upon, and allowing the use of torture just aren't dodgy enough. I used to think that Bush was just stuck in a Carter-like situation -- good guy, bad advisors. I'm convinced now that I have hideously insulted Jimmy Carter. If he wants to save his rep, he needs to a) own up, and b) get rid of all the lying people. I'm not even sure that would save him now. It sure wouldn't hold any water with me.--Ivy

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2005-12-19 11:51

There have been no impeachment hearings because there have been no impeachable offenses committed. THe congress authorized the use of power to go after Saddam. The intelligence that was used was erroneous, but the fact that Saddam had violated numerous UN sanctions that threatened the use of force made it clear that action needed to be taken. The President is in violation of not being able to communicate his position. Those who were responsible for Abu Ghraib have been sentenced and serving time behind bars. You can believe that they are hiding the truth, but they had their trials and they are now imprisoned. Gitmo has been used to house those who are considered prisoners of war. The treatment of these POWs has been better than the treatment our own military receives oftentimes from our government. These wiretaps were authorized by the Patriot Act. They are not illegal, we may find later that they are unconstitutional, but at this time they are not illegal. If that part of the Patriot Act is found unconstitutional, then the wiretapping, from that time forward, would be considered illegal. In times of war, steps are taken that would not be taken in times of peace. As much as wiretapping violates personal privacy, it is necessary to gather intelligence that might prevent another attack against the USA. Hopefully next time I post I will have my own login, but I am at school and I cannot receive the email that has my password. I have registered, though and plan on communicating on your blog in the future. Have a great day and I will see you guys soon. Thanks for the blog.Randy

Submitted by dbcollies on Mon, 2005-12-19 12:17

Thanks for the reply, Randy. Let me address your points as best I can:

  • There have been no impeachment hearings because there have been no impeachable offenses committed. THe congress authorized the use of power to go after Saddam. The intelligence that was used was erroneous, but the fact that Saddam had violated numerous UN sanctions that threatened the use of force made it clear that action needed to be taken. The President is in violation of not being able to communicate his position.This is based on the assumption that the President was unaware that the intelligence was faulty at the time he went to Congress. Some are prepared to concede that point. I am not.
  • Those who were responsible for Abu Ghraib have been sentenced and serving time behind bars. You can believe that they are hiding the truth, but they had their trials and they are now imprisoned.What about the chain of command? Aren't higher-ups supposed to be responsible for the actions of those in their command? I'll admit that this is an extremely weak argument as far as being ties directly to the President is concerned, but it does contribute to an overall pattern.
  • Gitmo has been used to house those who are considered prisoners of war. The treatment of these POWs has been better than the treatment our own military receives oftentimes from our government.But isn't that the very essence of the problem? The government gets to treat them outside of the normal rules of law in this country, since they're declared POWs. But it's the government that makes that declaration, and there's nobody to offer any sort of check against that power.
  • These wiretaps were authorized by the Patriot Act. They are not illegal, we may find later that they are unconstitutional, but at this time they are not illegal. If that part of the Patriot Act is found unconstitutional, then the wiretapping, from that time forward, would be considered illegal.I think you're mistaken, Randy. I could be wrong, but I think that, even under the Patriot Act, a warrant from the FISA commission would still be required to perform such monitoring,

I freely admit that you're probably more familiar with the intricacies of these issues than I am, given your position. I'm just reporting based on how I see things from my limited perspective.