You may contact me if something I say here strikes a chord, one way or another.
| "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about doing getting a court order before we do so." | ||
| President George Bush, April 24, 2004 Kleinshans Music Hall, Buffalo, New York Knowingly lying to the American public |
I think that is an impeachable offense. After all, they did it to Clinton for lying about something not nearly as serious, nor directly related to your personal liberties.
The rest of the time, please drive something smaller, safer, and saner.
I was taught in high school that all governmental power comes from the people. Specifically, it comes through laws that are enacted by congress -- the representatives of the people -- for the people themselves. No one -- not congress, not the President, not the courts, and certainly not the NSA -- has any power that hasn't been explicitly delegated to them by the people via laws made by congress and signed by the President.
So, did President Bush break the law by ordering the NSA to monitor phone and email conversations of certain US citizens when they are conversing with people overseas? Absolutely. Consider: congress made a set of laws to handle that case: it's called the FISA act, and it specifies ways to perform wire taps and other things needed to "monitor" potential terrorists. If that act is not adequate now, in light of 9/11, then the President should approach congress and ask for laws to give him the power he needs, subject to reasonable checks and balances.
Did the President ask for that sort of change? No. Instead he asserted that he has the authority to do what he wants, regardless of what the law says. I say he's full of shit. The law is there to limit exactly this sort of behavior, and he must obey it. Perhaps the changes he needs are legitimate, and can be accommodated. Perhaps not. But given he took the matter into his own hands, I think the only alternative now is to impeach him. The honor and safety of the people demand that he be removed from office as quickly as possible.
Do you know you're not being monitored? Are you sure?
How can I possibly determine if any given set of modifications to the California constitution is going to do what it claims? I've never seen the whole thing in one place, and the contents are huge. The impacts of any given part of the constitution on another are well beyond me, and are never addressed in the voters's pamphlet. This is a fundamentally bad situation, and causes me to vote "no" on just about any initiative at this point. I think it is justified. Do you agree?