lemurgoddess ([info]lemurgoddess) wrote,
@ 2006-09-07 16:47:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:culture and politics

Last month, a federal judge in Michigan ordered the Bush administration to stop the wiretap program, saying it violated civil rights. The administration has appealed.

"The surest way to keep the program is to get explicit approval from the United States Congress," Bush said on Thursday.



Dear Mr. President:

I'm writing in response to a recent speech you made as reported by the Washington Post (quotation included above).

That's right! It WILL take the approval of the Congress. That's exactly what you should have done initially, sought the approval of Congress (the representatives of the people -- remember us?!) See, this is how our government works. Your job is to EXECUTE the law that the legislative branch creates.

And, for clarification Bushie, when I say "execute" I mean "to carry out" not "to put to death." I've noticed you are a little confused about which definition is applicable.

The Constitution has granted us rights. This letter is representative of the First Amendment. Please don't piss all over that one, too.

Best wishes,
B.E. Hart

PS: You're a tool.




(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]serenitysgaze
2006-09-07 09:18 pm UTC (link)
It was going so well, right up until...

P.S. You're a tool

Something tells me you wouldn't get a reply :-D

hehe

(Reply to this)


[info]specsteve
2006-09-08 04:49 am UTC (link)
One of the problems with getting Congress to do anything at a rate faster than mollasses in midwinter is that it's virtually impossible. This year Congress meets for a whopping 80-87 days total, it being an election year. Apparently the capacity to keep your job has nothing to do with the ability to do your job.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a moral libertarian who rather disagrees with getting spied on, whether or not I'm doing anything wrong. But wiretaps without congressional oversight is actually an executive order leftover from the Cold War.
Apparently the Commies were more disliked by the American people than terrorists who have already carried out repeated attacks against the United States. So while I agree with you in principle, I'm afraid that until Congress meets and actually repeals the executive order authorizing wiretaps with little or no oversight, we're stuck with an immoral, unethical, but ultimately legal action by the White House. Like I've said, I support and defend the Constitution, not the person the Constitution puts in charge. I just take orders from him.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]lemurgoddess
2006-09-08 05:01 am UTC (link)
I totally agree. So we should demand more of our Congress. Get of there asses and get shit done. Lazy complacent citizens, lazy abusive politicians.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]specsteve
2006-09-08 04:52 am UTC (link)
Oh, and I doubt seriously you're going to get a response when you use an ad hominum attack like calling someone a tool. Just stick your tongue out and keep walking.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]lemurgoddess
2006-09-08 05:02 am UTC (link)
Damn! And I was hoping to get on his Christmas card list! XD

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Pet Peeve Gripe Alert!
[info]revp
2006-09-08 01:15 pm UTC (link)
ad hominem is not a synonym for "insult"! The ad hominem logical fallacy involves using a personal insult as a means to attack the other person's position. It does not involve instances of deriving a personal insult from the conclusions of one's argument. For show:

ad hominem:
Presiden Bush is a tool. Therefore, his approval of domestic wiretaps without warrents is wrong.

not ad hominem:
Domestic wiretaps without warrents is illegal under the law of the land. Congressional oversight is an important part of the checks and balances built into our system of government. Bush has ignored these fundamental provisions, and is setting a precedence of slowly stripping away our personal freedoms outside of our established system of government. Because of this, I think Bush is a tool.

See?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]angieohgirl
2006-09-09 04:50 pm UTC (link)
You knew I would have to reply. :) Just differently.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/30/00303.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/130610.shtml
-in this one note that Jamie Gorelick, who was part of the 911 commission is talked about. Personally, I place a great majority of 911 on her shoulders. She should be indicted and sitting in a jail cell eating bread and water. Just my opinion.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/1/23/134742.shtml
-most of article is worthless opinion poll garbage but last 2 paragraphs are worth noting.
"Nor did the NSA wiretaps break the law. The president's inherent power as commander in chief allows them. Warrant-less wiretaps for tax, drug, or even organized crime investigations would clearly be illegal. But to protect our country in the War on Terror, they are extensions of military action and are as legal as any wartime intelligence gathering would be.

The fact that there has been no declaration of war is a distinction without a difference. Congress has approved military action and within that approval lies an implicit assumption that the president will use our intelligence services to prevail militarily, on the home front as surely as he does in Iraq and Afghanistan."

That's enough for now. Although I think constant reporting of all possible terrorist attacks that were foiled just so we know things are going well is good. Terrorists watch TV and read newspapers too. Not good giving all our efforts out so they know how to conduct themselves more secretly.






(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]revp
2006-09-09 09:20 pm UTC (link)
Nor did the NSA wiretaps break the law. The president's inherent power as commander in chief allows them. Warrant-less wiretaps for tax, drug, or even organized crime investigations would clearly be illegal. But to protect our country in the War on Terror, they are extensions of military action and are as legal as any wartime intelligence gathering would be.

Without these warrents, though, how is anyone supposed to know what the taps are for? Where is the oversight to make sure that the warrent-less taps aren't for "tax, drug, or even organized crime investigations"?

The requirements for a FISA warrent are extremely basic. All the administration has to do is to show reasonable evidence that one party is a terrorist that "may" be up to some sort of terrorist activity. That's it. So what possible reason would the administration have for doing an end-around on the FISA requirements if they are so extremely basic?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]lemurgoddess
2006-09-09 09:40 pm UTC (link)
REPOST: Sorry I mistook something you said as being from the article, so I reworded it...

The excuse of "well he's the president" is bullshit. There are procedures in place that limit his power and prevent him from abusing his position as president. As revp mentions, it is easy it is to get a warrant, which IS the legal way to do it, and the administration has admitted to doing wiretaps without warrants. This means that the wiretaps ARE illegal.

Each branch of government has a way of keeping every other branch in check. This, as I've stated before, is the brilliance of our system. The warrents mentioned above is how his powers are put in check from the judicial branch.

And this rhetoric of "well we are at war" is foolish as well. Another check, as far as I understand, is that Congress must approve special wartime powers to the president on a limited basis (And they have, eg. The Patriot Act). A president CANNOT according to our system, do whatever he pleases just because "we are at war," he needs to follow the rules that were set in place.

People who remain ignorant to the checks and balances or our system, and support the president in his avoidance of such checks, has sold our time-tested system out and sown the seeds of dictatorship. Most don't realized, but when Hitler raised to power, he did so but systematically disolving the checks and balances in the government. Before long, he could do as he pleased.

Often people who understand the history, are the critics of the current administrations actions -- those that get branded "pro-terrorist" and "anti-American." Which is ironic, because those who fight against these blatant abuses of power are the ones who love our system enough to maintain its integrity.

I fall into this category. The more I learn about our founding fathers and the absolutely incredible system they put into practice, the more I get pissed off by our politicians who are slowly fucking it all a part. I have no respect for them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…