Monday, December 26, 2005

Question of the Day

Joe Conason, one of the true journalists still standing, poses a question worthy of speculation in this paragraph posted today in an article on the requirement for impeachment of Bush:
Why would the President instruct the Attorney General not to seek warrants from the FISA court, as the statute requires? What did he and his aides fear from that court's conservative judges -- appointed by the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- who have routinely approved all but a tiny percentage of the warrants presented to them by this and other administrations over the past quarter-century? Which wiretaps did he expect those pliable judges to reject?
Wiretaps on people from his enemies list? Wiretaps on journalists who badmouth his administration? You have to wonder that when a FISA warrant can be obtained after the wiretap has been ordered, and when the FISA court has rejected almost none of the 19,000 requests made since the law was enacted, just how outrageous were the wiretaps that El Presidente wanted?

At home my telephones sport stickers that say "This phone is tapped," and it was originally meant as a joke. Little did I expect that it would turn out to be an accurate assessment of the violation of the Fourth Amendment by the criminals that continue to assault the Constitution in the name of security.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Here's my question: The Iraq war always has the "w" in war lower case. This is because congress never declared it an official 'war.' So why has no one pointed out that Chimpie's justifications for eavesdropping do not match with what was touted at the beginning of this little engagement? It's not war, so how are wartime tactics even available? No one has mentioned this...Dan

Olaf said...

The reply to this from both lick-ass dems and repugs in Congress is that the authorization to use force is the equivalent of a declaration of war. I say bullshit. Either we officially declare war, or it's not on. Of course, we've had more non-war wars than declared wars, so it isn't like the precedent isn't set. It only reveals how the fundamental system of checks and balances is corrupted by the moral weakness and opportunism of people attracted to politics, not to mention the many, many business interests that actually control the people who seem to perpetually remain in true power. The whole stinking system is corrupt, and hardly democratic. Why should we think that a gang of criminals would worry about legalities?

Anonymous said...

Olaf, Chimpie will be in Chicago this weekend, and I am getting my sign-painting materials together. Are you up for a Winter Break roadtrip???

Olaf said...

Hi Mairin--no roadtrip this time. We did our number in the streets over and over and over and the sonofabitch is still in office thanks to a kneepad press and a populace consisting of ignorant dupes, religious fascists, and willfully uneducated morons who can't even read a newspaper unless the heading says "Sports." I'm beginning to believe that the only thing to be done is let the whole fucking country slowly come to boil in its own broth of ignorance, corruption, fantasy, and greed.