The Real Threat To America
Neo-cons! The whole dang Neo-con movement along with it's circus master, President George W Bush are the most dangerous element to the basis of what this country means.
It is very hard for me to turn the other cheek or be silent or even tolerant for the likes of that man when he does certain things. He came into office ignorant of the job and still chooses to remain ignorant of where his job begins and ends.
Have you heard the top secret?
Bush approved of wiretapping and eavesdropping on people's conversations without going through proper channels. He said, "This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security,"
When that secret was leaked out, he was the one who got angry for the ones who rightly exposed the secret and said, "This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States."
On several levels, this shows how backwards he has his job as President.
Civil liberties, being one of the things as President he is supposed to uphold and defend, is discounted on this fear-mongering campaign. Yes, there has always been a threat. 9/11 was not the first attack here and many attacks have been stopped before that happened. Terrorism will happen in the future. There is nothing that will stop it 100%.
The same threat has been there during Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton. The terrorists have always been lurking at the gates looking for a way to attack. 9/11 was massive, but Bush's Administration had ample warning of this impending threat and did nothing to stop it only to over-react after the fact.
A fear campaign does not stop terrorism, it just infringes on the rights of people who may or may not be guilty. The whole color system of warning of level of alert are meaningless the way it is used. An inept campaign to fight terrorism is just as bad as having no campaign to fight it.
Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.
Based on the numerous people who have been falsely accused of threatening terrorist attacks who have been kidnapped, taken off their homelands, put into prisons to suffer torture, without even being charged with a crime, I think we MUST question this Administration's judgement when it comes to whom should be wiretapped and followed.
There is a reason for Checks and Balances. HE is the one who has some nerve to say the actions of those who leaked about the wiretapping were illegal and improper. He is the one acting illegally and improper.
His attitude of he will do what he wants to do as long as he holds office and to hell with everyone else is wrong. He is President, not King, not Emperor, not Dictator. We, the people, are HIS boss, not the other way around. He discounts following the Constitution and laws in a bid to protect the people. That is not the job of the President.
Now comes the Patriot Act renewal. After this leak came into light, although many suspected he was doing it, so no big surprise, then came the vote to renew. It did not pass. Senate Democrats, with the aid of a handful of Republicans, succeeded Friday in stalling the bill already approved by the House. The vote to advance the measure, 52-47, fell eight votes shy of the 60 votes required to end debate. This Patriot Act will end December 31.
Again with the fear campaign in order to get his way, Bush stated, "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment." He claimed that senators who are blocking renewal of the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act are acting irresponsibly and standing in the way of protecting the country from attack.
Bush and his cronies are the ones acting irresponsibly and standing in the way of protecting our Constitution and civil liberties. Without the Constitution, what exactly are we protecting?
No, I am not saying we should throw up our hands and do nothing to fight terrorists. It is not a cut and dry, all or nothing, do it Bush's way or no way situation as his neo-con team want you to believe. It is about choices, alternatives, and thinking outside the box, but operating within the law.
Should wiretapping never be used? No, but I think we should do more than approve it for a mere suspect based on shady accusations. This is why such things had to be done with a court order. There needs to be proof that this action is necessary. The witnesses must prove to be credible. Surveillance picked up in this manner should properly be recorded and not just transcribed in notes as the supposed witness or ones conducting the tapping hear it. There is too much room for abuse on hearsay. Is it too much to ask of the people who are supposed to protect our civil liberties not just fling them aside on a whim?
There is a reason for due process. It is in our Constitution. When the Constitution was written, it did not say these rules do not apply to people who are suspected of crimes against the country. Even those who are traitors are guaranteed due process in the Constitution. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Why must people who are suspected of having links to terrorists groups or "lone wolfs" be subjected to false arrest, imprisonment and torture, without the right to counsel or to even talk to their fammily?
Yes, there are lone wolfs and terrorist suspects who indeed plan on doing damage, but there are many getting caught in this net where they are treated harshly for merely having done a totally unrelated business deal with a real suspect. A person could go to the same church, mosque, or synagogue with a real terrorist suspect and if you are seen talking to them then you could automatically be a target, even if all you did was ask them for the time.
This law is put up in fear of the radical Islamic groups, but the real question is when does this harsh law turn around on the rest of us? Tim McVeigh was a lone wolf by those terms. The group of white men who tied up a black man and dragged him on the back of their truck fit those terms. The people who gang up and kill homosexuals for the sport of it fit those terms. The children who have problems with bullies in school and threaten to kill fall in those terms.
These are all different levels of terrorism under the terms set up. It has not been enforced against Anglo-American citizens, yet. If you are a person of colour, you know exactly what I mean and where I am going with this.
If an otherwise cute looking blonde haired, blue eyed boy who was being bullied came running home teary-eyed because no one was able to stop the bullies threatened to kill them on the way home suddenly had a SWAT team surround his house in the middle of the night, knock down the door, put a hood over the child and keep the parents at bay without telling them what was going on or where they were taking the child...then to spirit the child out of the country into a dungeon where people could torture him based on his threat and try to tie other crimes on him, all the while he is not allowed to call his mom and dad or have a lawyer or someone in his corner...
Do you see the big picture, yet? How do you think the people in this country will react if it goes that far? By the terms of these anti-terrorist laws going around, that same child is no different than a leader of a radical Islamic group of terrorists.
Sorry if these extreme words offend you, but what our President is doing is frankly more offensive than anything I have mentioned here.
It is very hard for me to turn the other cheek or be silent or even tolerant for the likes of that man when he does certain things. He came into office ignorant of the job and still chooses to remain ignorant of where his job begins and ends.
Have you heard the top secret?
Bush approved of wiretapping and eavesdropping on people's conversations without going through proper channels. He said, "This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security,"
When that secret was leaked out, he was the one who got angry for the ones who rightly exposed the secret and said, "This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States."
On several levels, this shows how backwards he has his job as President.
Civil liberties, being one of the things as President he is supposed to uphold and defend, is discounted on this fear-mongering campaign. Yes, there has always been a threat. 9/11 was not the first attack here and many attacks have been stopped before that happened. Terrorism will happen in the future. There is nothing that will stop it 100%.
The same threat has been there during Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton. The terrorists have always been lurking at the gates looking for a way to attack. 9/11 was massive, but Bush's Administration had ample warning of this impending threat and did nothing to stop it only to over-react after the fact.
A fear campaign does not stop terrorism, it just infringes on the rights of people who may or may not be guilty. The whole color system of warning of level of alert are meaningless the way it is used. An inept campaign to fight terrorism is just as bad as having no campaign to fight it.
Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.
Based on the numerous people who have been falsely accused of threatening terrorist attacks who have been kidnapped, taken off their homelands, put into prisons to suffer torture, without even being charged with a crime, I think we MUST question this Administration's judgement when it comes to whom should be wiretapped and followed.
There is a reason for Checks and Balances. HE is the one who has some nerve to say the actions of those who leaked about the wiretapping were illegal and improper. He is the one acting illegally and improper.
His attitude of he will do what he wants to do as long as he holds office and to hell with everyone else is wrong. He is President, not King, not Emperor, not Dictator. We, the people, are HIS boss, not the other way around. He discounts following the Constitution and laws in a bid to protect the people. That is not the job of the President.
Now comes the Patriot Act renewal. After this leak came into light, although many suspected he was doing it, so no big surprise, then came the vote to renew. It did not pass. Senate Democrats, with the aid of a handful of Republicans, succeeded Friday in stalling the bill already approved by the House. The vote to advance the measure, 52-47, fell eight votes shy of the 60 votes required to end debate. This Patriot Act will end December 31.
Again with the fear campaign in order to get his way, Bush stated, "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment." He claimed that senators who are blocking renewal of the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act are acting irresponsibly and standing in the way of protecting the country from attack.
Bush and his cronies are the ones acting irresponsibly and standing in the way of protecting our Constitution and civil liberties. Without the Constitution, what exactly are we protecting?
No, I am not saying we should throw up our hands and do nothing to fight terrorists. It is not a cut and dry, all or nothing, do it Bush's way or no way situation as his neo-con team want you to believe. It is about choices, alternatives, and thinking outside the box, but operating within the law.
Should wiretapping never be used? No, but I think we should do more than approve it for a mere suspect based on shady accusations. This is why such things had to be done with a court order. There needs to be proof that this action is necessary. The witnesses must prove to be credible. Surveillance picked up in this manner should properly be recorded and not just transcribed in notes as the supposed witness or ones conducting the tapping hear it. There is too much room for abuse on hearsay. Is it too much to ask of the people who are supposed to protect our civil liberties not just fling them aside on a whim?
There is a reason for due process. It is in our Constitution. When the Constitution was written, it did not say these rules do not apply to people who are suspected of crimes against the country. Even those who are traitors are guaranteed due process in the Constitution. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Why must people who are suspected of having links to terrorists groups or "lone wolfs" be subjected to false arrest, imprisonment and torture, without the right to counsel or to even talk to their fammily?
Yes, there are lone wolfs and terrorist suspects who indeed plan on doing damage, but there are many getting caught in this net where they are treated harshly for merely having done a totally unrelated business deal with a real suspect. A person could go to the same church, mosque, or synagogue with a real terrorist suspect and if you are seen talking to them then you could automatically be a target, even if all you did was ask them for the time.
This law is put up in fear of the radical Islamic groups, but the real question is when does this harsh law turn around on the rest of us? Tim McVeigh was a lone wolf by those terms. The group of white men who tied up a black man and dragged him on the back of their truck fit those terms. The people who gang up and kill homosexuals for the sport of it fit those terms. The children who have problems with bullies in school and threaten to kill fall in those terms.
These are all different levels of terrorism under the terms set up. It has not been enforced against Anglo-American citizens, yet. If you are a person of colour, you know exactly what I mean and where I am going with this.
If an otherwise cute looking blonde haired, blue eyed boy who was being bullied came running home teary-eyed because no one was able to stop the bullies threatened to kill them on the way home suddenly had a SWAT team surround his house in the middle of the night, knock down the door, put a hood over the child and keep the parents at bay without telling them what was going on or where they were taking the child...then to spirit the child out of the country into a dungeon where people could torture him based on his threat and try to tie other crimes on him, all the while he is not allowed to call his mom and dad or have a lawyer or someone in his corner...
Do you see the big picture, yet? How do you think the people in this country will react if it goes that far? By the terms of these anti-terrorist laws going around, that same child is no different than a leader of a radical Islamic group of terrorists.
Sorry if these extreme words offend you, but what our President is doing is frankly more offensive than anything I have mentioned here.
posted by Callen Damornen at 7:10:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home