Wiretaps - Media Misses the Point (with Poll)

The Bush friendly mainstream media is once again trying to distract Americans from news that is less than favorable towards the White House. While this administration continues to engage in criminal activity by ordering illegal wiretaps on Americans, the media tries to frame the issue as a debate on national security vs. civil liberties. That really pisses me off! For one thing, balancing civil liberties against the need for national security is a false choice. The government's duty is to provide security without breaking the law, thereby protecting everyone's constitutional rights at the same time.

The president claims he is only wiretapping terrorists. But how do we know he's telling the truth? Did he tell the truth about why we went to war in Iraq? Why should anyone believe anything the White House says? By bypassing the FISA court, we have no way of knowing whether they were just wiretapping terrorists or if they were also spying on environmentalists, peace groups, animal rights activists or political enemies.

Conclusion (and poll!) below...

The fact of the matter is the president needs to be held accountable for breaking a law designed to protect the rights of all Americans. A president who fails to defend and uphold the Constitution is in violation of his oath of office. Weighing national security against civil liberties is not a legitimate debate. It's merely a distraction.

Are you as pissed as I am?

•  Make Some Noise!!!

  While the evil and dangers inherent in these illegal actions seem obvious to us, and to anyone who's ever seen Enemy of the State, we're gonna have to work this one to force it into the MSM's consciousness (such as it is).  

  Two thoughts: 1) If you haven't read Dan Brown's Digital Fortress, u should.  A key line: "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custode"--Who's Guarding the Guards?  Obviously, w/Bush, nobody--we're just supposed to trust these lyin' bastards!!!

  2) I think the general reference to the Constitution is insufficient.  Much more potent to quote the crystal-clear words of the Fourth Amendment, to wit: "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 person or things to be seized."

  Quaint, huh?  So much for strict constructionists, I guess!!!!

  by serrano on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 08:45:34 AM PDT

  •  Yes But...

    "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 person or things to be seized."

    That's just a little too inconvenient if you're going after People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals!
    

    by steviemo on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 08:53:13 AM PDT

•  Mixed Feelings

  I have mixed feelings about the MSM's performance so far.

  First, it is shameful that the NYTimes sat on this story for over a year, regardless of the reasons.  On the other hand, I think the NYT deserves some credit for saying no to Bush in deciding to run the story belatedly.  Let's face it, we can't be sure how it would of played if it was released before the 2004 election.  Bush was over 50% then, and Karl would have labeled it as just another political stunt to help Kerry by that bastion of liberal media bias, the NY Times.  After all Watergate broke before Nixon's re-election and a fat lot of good it did for McGovern.

  Second, while Bushco tried to spin this as spying on terrorists within the US, most MSM that I saw, Faux excepted, portayed this for what it really was, the NSA spying on US citizens by order of the White House.  On the other hand however, I fully agree that the MSM has fallen into the old "equal time" trap in characterizing this as a Repub vs. Dem. debate over presidential powers instead of what it really is, Bush violated the law and constitution and got caught.  Of course, I think its partially our own fault.  Most Dems. are calling for Hearings to investigate the matter, instead of calling for Impeachment Hearings to start building a case against Bush.  I know they can't get the Repubs. to go for impeachment Hearings at this point, but by only asking for Hearings the Repubs. are going to use them to debate presidential power and try to blur the issue of whether a crime has been commited.

  Lastly, it will be interesting to see how the MSM reacts to Bushcos latest distraction attempt to make an investigation as to who blew the whistle on him the issue.  If the MSM bites and starts running this as story one, instead of Bushcos spying, I would agree we're doomed.  Time will tell.

  by Doctor Who on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 08:56:00 AM PDT

  •  The "I Word"

    If somehow Bush and Cheney get impeached and removed from office (that assumes Dems regain controm of House and Senate in 2006), then Hastert is next in line...

    No - wait a minute!

    If Dems retake th House, then Hastert is no longer Speaker.

    President Pelosi?

    by steviemo on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:05:24 AM PDT

    •  Everybody say...

      Thank you, Mr. Abramoff.

      by steviemo on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:07:33 AM PDT

      •  Uh...

        ...getting ahead of ourselves?

        by steviemo on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:08:09 AM PDT

    •  For The Record...

      Rumor has it that Hastert himself is one of the Repubs. caught up in the Abramhoff mess.

      by Doctor Who on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:23:02 AM PDT

  •  Apologia

    You're much too apologetic for the MSM!  The data-mining story alone is huge, not to mention the snooping superstructure these guys have created!!!  There is absolutely no guarantee that these guys aren't committing rampant abuses, and the DoD story about PETA, Vegans, and enviros virtually guarantees that they are-note that Neo-Nazis, Militias, and Abortion Clinic Bombers didn't seem to make the list.  

    This story needs to be driven home to the average citizen so that they recognize not only the illegality but the inherent creepiness of the whole damn thing!!  Need to do like the local news--"which of your e-mails has the Gov been looking at", "you thought party lines were dead?  Think again".  This is a bonafide Constitutional Crisis, and these guys just want to paper it over with happy talk about national security and supposed focused taps---blaahhh!!!!

    by serrano on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:09:40 AM PDT

•  true 1 other point

  1.  the justice department was ordered to commit a federal crime by bush

  1. Now the entity that committed the crime is investigating how that news got to the american people, while claiming they did not commit a crime, which is false.

  something is seriously wrong with this scenario.

  by balletshooz on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:01:37 AM PDT

•  No one's putting it together

  They all seem to regard the spying, the torturing, the secret prisons as individual discret issues as opposed to seeing it for what it is - a private Presidential Justice system that can operate without any oversight or accountability.

  This is the essence of despotism.

  If one grant the logic of John Yoo's tortured analysis, then the president must also have the power to suspend Congress, dismiss the judiciary, cancel elections, declare martial law and install himself as President for life.

  That Bush should spend as much effort as he does looking for loopholes in the Constitution and the civil code should tell us everything we need to know about his intentions.

  Sadly the MSM fails to address this and consistently tells the story wrong making it a case of (as the anchor on the CBS evening news said here in new York last week: "Democrats say the President needs to go to court for permission"

  Hitler at least used to fig leaf of the Enabling Act - Bush claims that his dictatorial perogatives lay hidden in the Constitution.

  It's a travesty.

  Considering the passive response, I'd say that martial law cannot be far away.

  by padraig pearse on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 10:13:51 AM PDT

  •  And Then...

    Assuming the generals honor their oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, we could possibly see a violent overthrow of the U.S. government.  

    Let's hope it doesn't come to that!

    by steviemo on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 10:20:59 AM PDT

•  Well

  Homeland security did hire former KGB boss (and Soviet President) Primakov, along with the head of the former East German Stasi, Markus Wolfe as consultants.

  Hmmm.  I always wondered just what all that was about.

  But of course, these guys have huge experience with secret prison camps and domestic spying.

  Maybe that's why they're breaking down the US Army, so there won't be any effective military to resist it and its hordes of mercenaries and privatised military - all to go along with their private justice system...

  As for Congress, well, I remember a story breaking in 02 revealing how, after 9-11, Rumsfeld and Cheney launched the double super secret emergency government and neglected to tell any Democrats about it.

  Wonder how that's going?

  Suddenly, nothing sounds quite as tin foil as it all did a year ago.

  by padraig pearse on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 02:54:01 PM PDT

  •  Pure Genius

    And since the basically own the media and control the information, who's gonna know?
    

    by steviemo on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 10:39:02 AM PDT