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.
That little ditty comes to us from the Fourth Amendment of [http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html|the Bill of Rights]. The Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution and it is a written record of the rights we Americans believe all humans have. Here's another quote for you:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That was from [http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html|the Declaration of Independence]. That quote above reminds us that ALL men are created equal and that only the Creator (not the Christian God, but whomever we believe to be the source of humanity's creation) gives us these rights.
Yet, Bush has taken away our rights.
He has subject an unknown number of American citizens to wiretaps that would violate the Fourth Amendment. What's worse is that he has resorted to doublespeak--a term which refers to George Orwell's novel 1984 in which the government openly contradicts itself. Here's another quote for you, this one from [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600959.html|a January 26, 2006 article] from AP.org and WashingtonPost.com:
President Bush again defended his program of warrantless surveillance Thursday, saying "there's no doubt in my mind it is legal." He suggested that he might resist congressional efforts to change or expressly endorse it.
"The program's legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary," Bush told a White House news conference.
This is blatant double speak.
How can a program that violates our civil liberties (our Creator-given rights) be designed to protect them?
Ultimately, the argument the Bush Administration is using is that our rights are being violated to protect our lives.
Back in 1775 one of the founding fathers of America uttered a phrase that would echo down through history classes for the two hundred years that would follow. Patrick Henry said, 230 years ago: "[http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/henry.html|...give me liberty or give me death!]"
He said this trying to rally the American colonies to choose to rise up against the British. He was encouraging war because his rights and the rights of everyone else in the colonies were being ignored by Britain. His point was that he would rather die than live another day without his rights.
I feel the same way.
Mr. Bush, if you are unable to protect my life without violating my rights, then let me lose my life.
Living without freedom is not living.
Any true American should agree with me on this.
Of course I don't want to die.
The thing is, I don't want to live in a country that doesn't let me do what I want, say what I want, talk to whom I want, and so on.
Believe it or not, there is no crime in having a phone conversation with Osama bin Laden. There is no law on the books that says having a phone conversation with a murderer or international terrorist is illegal.
Yet, the Bush Administration tells us it is their right to listen to such conversations.
The catch is that (and this is just a guess) 99.99999999999% of us have absolutely no contact what so ever with Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. So, why the warrantless wiretaps? Why skip past the FISA courts?
Why go against the spirit (not to mention the word) of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and, at least, one of the Founding Fathers?
From WashingtonPost.com and AP.org:
Bush Calls Warrantless Wiretaps Legal
By TERENCE HUNT
The Associated Press
Friday, January 27, 2006; 1:13 AM
WASHINGTON -- President Bush again defended his program of warrantless surveillance Thursday, saying "there's no doubt in my mind it is legal." He suggested that he might resist congressional efforts to change or expressly endorse it.
"The program's legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary," Bush told a White House news conference.
Democrats have accused the president of breaking the law in allowing eavesdropping on overseas communications to and from U.S. residents, and even some members of his own party have questioned the practice.
It was the president's first full-scale news conference of the new year, and the 10th since he was re-elected in 2004. He previewed his upcoming State of the Union address and fielded questions on former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the stunning victory of the radical group Hamas in Palestinian elections and the administration's cooperation with Congress on its investigation of Hurricane Katrina.
Asked if he would support efforts in Congress to spell out his authority to continue the eavesdropping program, Bush cited what he said was the extreme delicacy of the operation.
"But it's important for people to understand that this program is so sensitive and so important that if information gets out to how we run it or how we operate it, it'll help the enemy," he said. "Why tell the enemy what we're doing?"
"We'll listen to ideas. But I want to make sure that people understand that if the attempt to write law makes this program -- is likely to expose the nature of the program, I'll resist it," he said.
On the Middle East, Bush expressed concern that Palestinian elections had given a majority to the radical party Hamas, which has called for the elimination of Israel, although he noted that democratic elections sometimes produce unwelcome results.
He made it clear that any organization that has an armed wing and which advocates violence against Israel "is a party with which we will not deal."
Bush called the election results a "wake-up call" to the old guard Palestinian leadership, many of whom are holdovers from the days of the late PLO ChairmanYasser Arafat.
Questioned about a controversy swirling about disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Bush said he would cooperate with federal prosecutors investigating Abramoff and his alleged influence peddling activities, if necessary. Otherwise, the president said he saw no reason to release pictures that he acknowledged were taken of him and Abramoff.
"There is a serious investigation going on by federal prosecutors _ that's their job," the president said. "If they believe something was done inappropriately in the White House, they'll come and look and they're welcome to do so."
Otherwise, Bush said, "I've had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with him or know him very well. "
"I've had my picture taken with you," Bush said to the reporter who asked the question.
Pressed further on his relationship with Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from his lobbying practices and has pledged to cooperate with investigators, Bush said, "I frankly don't even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don't know him."
He said that federal investigators should pursue all leads and "look into all aspects of his influence on Capitol Hill," and that if the path also leads to the White House, he was sure they would "come knock on the door."
He was asked if he meets with lobbyists. "I try not to," Bush replied.
Asked about assertions by some Democrats that they will take back control of Congress in this year's midterm elections, Bush said he wasn't surprised they were talking that way, but shrugged it off.
He said he was ready to hit the campaign trail one more time, not for himself, but to stump for Republican congressional candidates this year. "We've got a record and a good one, and that's what I intend to campaign on," Bush said.
The president defended his administration's level of cooperation with congressional investigations into the government's slow response to the Hurricane Katrina devastation, citing the thousands of documents the White House has provided.
Questioned on congressional complaints that more could be done, Bush said that it would have a "chilling effect" on the ability of presidential advisers to speak freely.
Bush also said that his nominee for Supreme Court, Samuel Alito, deserves to be confirmed in the Senate, where he clearly has the votes but where minority-party Democrats were speaking out against him at length.
"The Senate needs to give him an up or down vote as soon as possible," Bush said in opening remarks that also previewed the themes of his State of the Union address next Tuesday.
Bush shrugged off a recent Pentagon-contracted report which concluded the Army was overextended and the United States cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency there.
The president predicted victory in Iraq and said, "Our commanders will have the troops necessary to do that."
He said the military was focused on transforming itself to ensure the armed forces could meet its goals in the 21st century.
"After five years of war, there is a need to make sure that our troops are balanced properly, that threats are met with capability. And that's why we're transforming our military," Bush said.
© 2006 The Associated Press
No comments:
Post a Comment