I Want to Save a Child's Sight!

Sunday, December 18, 2005

This Call May Be Monitored...

"On Oct. 17, 2002, the head of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, made an eloquent plea to a joint House-Senate inquiry on intelligence for a sober national discussion about whether the line between liberty and security should be shifted after the 9/11 attacks, and if so, precisely how far. He reminded the lawmakers that the rules against his agency's spying on Americans, carefully written decades earlier, were based on protecting fundamental constitutional rights. If they were to be changed, General Hayden said, "We need to get it right. We have to find the right balance between protecting our security and protecting our liberty." General Hayden spoke of having a "national dialogue" and added: "What I really need you to do is talk to your constituents and find out where the American people want that line between security and liberty to be."

"General Hayden was right. The mass murders of 9/11 revealed deadly gaps in United States intelligence that needed to be closed. Most of those involved failure of performance, not legal barriers. Nevertheless, Americans expected some reasonable and carefully measured trade-offs between security and civil liberties. They trusted their elected leaders to follow long-established democratic and legal principles and to make any changes in the light of day. But President Bush had other ideas. He secretly and recklessly expanded the government's powers in dangerous and unnecessary ways that eroded civil liberties and may also have violated the law."

"President Bush defended the program yesterday, saying it was saving lives, hotly insisting that he was working within the Constitution and the law, and denouncing The Times for disclosing the program's existence. We don't know if he was right on the first count; this White House has cried wolf so many times on the urgency of national security threats that it has lost all credibility. But we have learned the hard way that Mr. Bush's team cannot be trusted to find the boundaries of the law, much less respect them." [NYT]

So, now we know, and Bush has admitted to breaking the law. I love though that instead of apologizing and admitting it was a wrongdoing, he criticizes the New York Times for breaking the story.

Where do we go from here? Where does this end? Does it die with another primetime news conference where we are told that "Staying the Course" is the only way on Iraq, and Bush lies some more? What is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back? Are people now going to realize that this administration is full of liars, thieves, and ill-suited political appointees (Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!).

1 comment:

tetrasaure said...

I love it, most people never knew about this shit, and most don't even care. This just hardens my view that our liberties are gone, and we are just allowed to live the life style. If you wanna try it but I would not encourage it, but try the using some of keywords and phrases over any type of phone / cell / lan line / VIOP. Like Bomb, kill, assination, and so on with conjuction or policatical leader, or royalty. If your smart you think of some stuff, but if you use the a direct mention of those with president and name it will bring out all kinds of shit. Even an email from your self to your self with that is the body will get you into hella ammounts of trouble or flagged to be monitored for X ammount of time. I've seen it, and I know it works, play with it if you want to. The systems are so good you won't even know your phone is tapped, no clicks, wistels, or beeps like you see in the movies.

Zeig Hiel to the 4th Riech