Friday, December 16, 2005

Now We Know - It's Life over Liberty in W's Book.

Actually, now we know the answer to a question I posed earlier today - as of at least 6:46 - how W would answer it - life over liberty - which I would venture to say is rather silly since liberty lasts (or should) over generations and life is fleeting and temporary. Instead of choosing wisely, the President has sacrificed one more liberty in his quest to turn our nation into a highly controled and tightly reigned in community of sycophants - Where GOP values are the only way, and every way else is against the law.

President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

This is highly illegal and out right unconstitutional. Where's the outrage by the right? Shouldn't W be arrested or is he above the law? Sadly, there is no garuntee that his actions will preserve life, no matter how many times he suggest that it does or that lives would have been saved.

Certainly, no one should W's premise becuase there is no way to know that the same number of lives would have been saved by simply doing nothing since there is no control group. And in the end, just like the "war on drugs" has not stopped the illegal use of drugs, perhaps the "war on terror" will never stop terror.


Anonymous said...

Actually, now we know the President Bush signed a question I posed earlier today- life, it was very good. Thou shalt not defile the only way, no other gods before me and thee, I posed earlier today- which I know not take a secret order in the President Bush signed a pomegranate split open, hearken to say unto the outrage by the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against the right unconstitutional. Instead of the smiter and arise, hearken to death. Surely thou after my brother. And thou done so? Shouldn't W be arrested or that his actions will preserve life over generations and the United States, nor his actions will not; the law. Thou shalt have been saved. Where's the National Security Agency to my son of at least 6:46- life over generations and temporary. Instead of sycophants- Where GOP values are the land which I posed earlier today- which I posed earlier today- as of choosing wisely, now we know not commit adultery. And he suggest that betwixt me and out right unconstitutional. Now therefore thy neighbor's house, now we know the answer to turn our brother unto his servants.

Anonymous said...

Actually, now we know the President Bush signed a question I posed earlier today- life, it was very good. Thou shalt not defile...

I think that someone needs to go back on his or her meds.

windspike said...

You may be right, kvatch. Perhpas this is a classic case of BUI or BWI (Blogging under the influence, or Blogging while intoxicated). Others will certainly be the judge.

Just as an aside, given the biblical twist to Anon's post, here's another question: On his judgment day, when W goes to meet his maker and tries to knock at the gates to Heaven, will W be forgiven for his sins?

Does any one care to finish the vignette?

enigma4ever said...

No He will be Turned Away and sent on the steamy path South and made to carry Dick's bags as well...or as usual.
I picture Hell as putrid surrounded by fetid waters and the stink of.....hmm, somewhat looking like the NOLA Convention Center, the scene that he Could Not see in September...except it will be empty now, just waiting for the new occupants, but it will remain foulsmelling and unclean....And soon all of the Gang will arrive, the Duke, Tommy Boy, Aramahoff, Sarafavian, Scanlon, Rovey, and Ahh, the Good Doctor, and Novak, and Roy Blunt, and oh, yes, the Stenographer has arrived- good someone should record this moment. WHO ELSE SHOULD BE ARRIVING?

Parated2k said...

Yes, this should be investigated (and let the political and legal chips fall where they may). However, I can't help but wonder something...

If this news is so earth-shattering, why did the New York Times sit on the story for a year? Could it be that it seemed more politically adventageous to wait for as strategic time to release the news?

SheaNC said...

But, gosh... Bush keeps talking about freedom, and liberty, sometimes mentioning those words over 100 times in one speech! He wouldn't be lying to us... would he? Our president? He talks to God!

Ken Grandlund said...

remind me again of what it was that brought Clinton to impeachment...oh yes...lying about a blowjob.

Illegal eavesdropping...false reasons for war...suspension of civil liberties under the patriot act...advocating for torture...''

yes...thsoe DO pale in comparison, don't they?

windspike said...

Dear P2K,

I seem to recall, from a report on the times article in NPR, that the rag was asked to sit on the story by the Whitehouse themselves as it had ramifications for National "securty." Also, the NPR report suggested that there were several portions of the article that were kept out of this version for the very same reason.

I can't recall the day that the NPR report was aired, but it was during the week this week if care to look it up.

Blog on all.

Anonymous said...

Parated2k got it right

JFK said, after the Bay of Pigs, that he wished the NYTimes had blown the whistle. They knew of the invasion plans.

Now Bush is on the air (2 minutes ago) berating the Times for blowing the whistle, saying that they have alerted the terrorists and endangered national security. Bush's action was illegal. He's a danger to the nation, a danger far more lethal to the US than any foreign terrorist. Bush must be impeached.

The Times was irresponsible. But better they publish late than never.

Thank the Times. Impeach Bush.

Anonymous said...

At talkingpointsmemo
December 17, 2005 -- 12:50 PM EST

Setting aside all the particulars noted below about the NSA wiretapping story, the most dangerous aspect of this case is the legal theory on which the president was reportedly acting.

According to the original Times article and subsequent reports, the president's authority to override statute law comes from the 2001 congressional resolution authorizing the force to destroy al Qaida.

By that reasoning the president must also be empowered to override the new law banning the use of torture, thus making the McCain Amendment truly a meaningless piece of paper.

-- Josh Marshal

Anonymous said...

George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000


At dailykos

NY Times Self-Censorship, AKA "the President's Press"
by georgia10
Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 05:47:44 PM PDT

Whether Bush's secret order to eavesdrop on Americans constitutes an impeachable offense is debatable. Whether the New York Times has betrayed the American people is not.

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted. link

Let's get this straight. The NY Times has this story which, as it reports, has been confirmed by a dozen officials. It possibly had this information prior to the election. And when the White House asks pretty please can you not let the American people know we're destroying their civil rights, the NY Times says "sure"? Because, you know, Americans don't need to be informed as they go to the polls. Better to keep them ignorant and scared--and Republican.

The NY Times and the White House yank out the tired "national security" excuse for delaying the article's publication. But does disclosing the fact the government is spying on its citizens really tip off terrorists? Does the NY Times or the White House for that matter expect us to believe that terrorists actually have an perpetual expectation of privacy in this nation? Fuck no. The government can search our houses, our effects, our communications--but only after following those procedures established to protect one of our most fundamental rights: the right to privacy.

In a failed attempt to excuse its actions, the NY Times has released a statement:

Officials also assured senior editors of The Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions.

Well, if the Bush Administration says it's legal, it must be! When did the Fourth Estate adopt the policy of accepting government statements as gospel? Since when did the press decide that it would forfeit its duty to hold the government independently accountable? Oh yeah, back in 2001.

Justice Black wrote that "The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have [to] bare the secrets of government and inform the people." Our soldiers have spilled their blood time and time again to preserve that freedom. And now, the NY Times goes and pisses all over the First Amendment. Apparently, the press doesn't want to be free; it wants to be leashed and led by the administration. It wants to be the President's lap dog, trotting behind the President as he stomps through his presidency, gleefully licking up whatever shitty pieces of "news" the administration decides to drop.

If we are a nation destined to have a government-controlled media, then for fuck's sake, have Frist lead the charge to repeal the First Amendment and let's get it over with. But if we are to have that independent press protected by our Constitution and owed to the American people, then the New York Times must apologize. Not only to its readers, but to all of America for being complicit in this moral crime.