Setbacks for Bush's attacks on civil liberties

[pegkerr]

I was shocked when I read the paper today with the story about how Bush's administration had authorized spying on American citizens without warrants; I showed it to Rob, and his comment was, "Why should you be surprised?" Which is true. But I do keep thinking this administration cannot sink any lower, and they keep on surprising me.

But the timing of this announcement has had one pleasing result: it has sunk his attempt to renew provisions of the Patriot Act, and it is clear that the Senate's rebuke to the President is largely thanks to the report on the National Security Agency's shenanigins. Coupled with the stinging setback Bush received on the torture issue, thanks to McCain (one Republican I definitely respect), Bush is clearly having a pretty bad month.

Hurrah.

Comments

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

I'm not yet convinced that he's having a bad month. The spying revelations just say that he doesn't care what the laws are, which makes me fear that the torture deal that we sign is not going to lead to a policy shift or a change in how we are perceived by our neighbors and enemies.

If all these stories get spun as that the Administration is trying to fight terrorism and the Democrats are taking the bullets out of the President's gun in the name of "civil rights" (which is nearly as repugnant a word as "liberal" out there), then this could lead to a resurgence in the President's confidence. The Democrats are going to have a hard time getting a winning hand if their battle cry is "America must be stopped!"

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

Ummm, just to be clear. I totally agree that all of these events are leading humanity in the right direction. I'm just afraid that it still won't be enough to wake up the American people to the dangers of the Administration.

[verstehen.livejournal.com]

I hate to agree, because the implications of that agreement scare me and really make me fear living in America in terms of both the global environment and hostility towards us and the threat we live under from our own government. When did we start living in Iran?

In the end, I do think that Bush is going to do exactly what he was doing before. I don't think he'll even be more careful about it after all the revelations, which is a sad statement about how awful our current Administration is.

[aome.livejournal.com]

I, myself, was appalled at the front-page story about how Bush finally conceded that Torture Is Bad. He had to be armtwisted into accepting this??

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

It is not overstatement to suggest that this may be the most significant violation of federal surveillance law in the post-Watergate era.

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007789.php

She said is way better than I did.

B

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

I heard on the news, by the way, that the New York Times sat on this story for a year. Argh.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Bet you anything that the very seriousness of this story will be lost in the noise.

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Looks like I'm wrong about this.

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

The President's radio address this morning -- which I just got around to reading -- is very revealing. He said that he is relying on his Constitutional powers (Article 2) and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress after 9/11 that led to the war in Iraq. No wonder Congress is upset. The debate over the future of the Patriot Act is premised on the belief that the Executive branch will follow the law. Otherwise, what is the point of legislating?

Also interesting was the Washington Post report this morning that Judge Lamberth and Judge Kollar-Kotelly, the past and current chief judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, were aware of the program and had misgivings.

The President's claim that to reveal the existence of this program is an aid to the enemy or may hinder investigations is disingenuous. Numerous procedures have been established to enable judicial oversight and public reporting while safeguarding the integrity of investigations. In the Freedom of Information Act world, there are the (b)(1) (national security), (b)(3) (special statues), and (b)(7) (law enforcement) exemptions. And in the foreign intelligence world, there is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. But it now appears that the President substituted his own judgement for the acts of Congress.

I am currently shopping an op ed around that will say all of this.

B

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

You saw this piece in the Washington Post, yes?

I didn't hear or read the President's radio address, but only heard excerpts, but even those had me yelling at the radio. What got stuck in my craw was that he had the nerve to accuse those who revealed this program, i.e., the media, of breaking the law, when he's the one who is breaking the law.

He really truly thinks he is above the law. The answer to every objection to his policies, of course, is 9/11.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I did see the Washington Post analysis. There is also an editorial in the New York Times today. And you can read a transcript of Bush's radio address here.

"What got stuck in my craw was that he had the nerve to accuse those who revealed this program, i.e., the media, of breaking the law, when he's the one who is breaking the law."

That's a standard Republican tactic these days. It's complete bunk, by the way. Government officials who observe illegal behavior are obligated to report it. And the newspapers are not bound by any laws not to reveal classified information. The argument that the New York Times put people at risk by revealing this is similarly nonsense.

Basically, Bush does believe that he is has dictatorial powers in the fight against terrorism. That's the whole point of the Yoo memo.

B

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

And it's certainly not a surprise, considering the way the jerk got into office in the first place.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

You're not the first person to point that out: the end justifies the means.

B

[sarekofvulcan.livejournal.com]

*headdesk*

"Those that would give up essential liberties in pursuit in a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security," said Sen. John Sununu, R-New Hampshire.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

That quotation was originally from Benjamin Franklin, by the way.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Although it's funnier if you think it came from Sununu.

B

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

True.

[sarekofvulcan.livejournal.com]

Hence my *headdesk*. :-)

[dreamflower]

Bush deserves a bad month--or more! I am so glad that folks are getting to see what a screw-up he is now. Maybe we'll be able to dump the Repulicans in a few years.

I just wish people had found all this mess out before he was re-elected. But of course, part of his trouble now is he's a lame duck.