I think that somewhere in the White House, George Bush keeps a shrine to Lee Kwan Yew, the first Prime Minister of Singapore and now is the governmental leader who just will not go away. After 30 years in power, he supposedly turned over the reigns of power-but in reality he never did. In his dreams George Bush, I think, secretly envies him.
And despises the 26th amendment of the Constitution. Because if George W. Bush could, he would invoke the ghost of FDR, keep the war going on forever, and remain in power for as long as his body would support it. At least he talks that way-and has been talking that way in his overheated rhetoric concerning the failure to pass the Protect America act. Just like Lee saw Singapore surrounded by threats all around, which could only be dealt with if the citizens turned over their liberties to him-like the good sheep he wanted them to be-George Bush sees an Islamic terrorist behind every tree. And because of that, every American should just walk blindly into that great good night of giving up rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments of the Bill of Rights-in the name of protecting some greater good.
In GWB’s world, the Republican party becomes the PAP-the rubber stamp for any ideas that he deems fit. For him, the US Congress should be like the Parliament of Singapore-a place for the like minded to meet and formally approve the ideas that were already decided for them by the Chief Executive to the Chief Executive.
America does not have “Minster Mentors”-but regrettably we have “elder statesmen”. Thanks to modern medical science , we will have George Bush around in that role for many years to come. Much the loss for the United States.
Over at Phib’s place a commenter summed up the current level of paranoia on behalf of those who insist that the President has to get his way on every little thing-and that if he does not it will be the end of life as we know it-very well:
It’s funny how people who argue for a strict interpretation of the Constitution in the case of activist judges (“it is what is written – you can’t add anything to it”) take such a radically different approach in the case of privacy rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment. Here it is, the whole thing:“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”Notice that there is no clause exempting this from applying in the case of a threat from Islamo-Fascists (or Commies, or Mobsters, or Japs/Krauts/Dagos, or Wobblies, or Bolsheviks, or Krauts, or anarchists, etc. – all these ranting arguments calling those opposed to expanding these powers “traitors” or “fellow travelers” have been made against those who didn’t feel it worthwhile to give up our liberty in order to overcome any of those groups.) In fact, reading the papers of those that wrote the Constitution, it is obvious that they felt that in the case of emergency situations it became even MORE critical to follow these restrictions, since they knew that once taken, it would almost always be impossible to have them removed.In this case, not approving the right to tap these phone calls does not mean, as Arends puts it, “our intelligence officials no longer have the legal authority to collect foreign intelligence.” Instead, it means that they must go through the secret FISA court to be granted a warrant to do so. When asked why this is so onerous that it would prevent the effective collecting of information, the response is, “We can’t tell you why, but trust us, it would.” That is not good enough to surrender our rights.
The Protect America Act debate is full of lies and in those lies the real facts get obscured. That is primarily because if the facts are brought up-the administration’s position collapses. Like his Singaporean “mentor” GWB does not want the masses thinking for themselves. He just wants them to feel comfortable while their liberties are stolen from them. By the time they realize they have been robbed of the protections they are entitled to-it is too late to do anything about it.
If the US is somehow more unsafe than it was two days ago-there is only one person responsible for that and its not anyone in Congress:
This is one of the most bizarre propaganda dramas ever, even when weighed against other Bush Terrorism propaganda dramas of the past. There is one reason, and one reason only, that the Protect America Act expired. Its name is “George W. Bush.” That is who refused to agree to the Democrats’ offer to extend the law by 21 days (or longer), then repeatedly threatened to veto any such extension (“US President George W. Bush on Wednesday vowed to veto another temporary extension of a domestic spying law”), then directed the always-obedient House Republicans to vote unanimously against the extension, which they (needless to say) did. This vital-to-our-safety piece of legislation expired only because George W. Bush repeatedly blocked its extension. It’s just that simple.
All of the right-wing war cheerleaders who will be rendered sleepless as of midnight tonight, petrified that the Muslims who normally lurk menacingly on their corners will now be free to spring attacks since we now live under FISA (1978-8/2007) rather than the PAA (8/2007-2/2008), have only the Warrior-Protector Commander-in-Chief to blame for making us all so very “unprotected and unsafe.” And George W. Bush’s (absurd) claim this morning that, as of midnight tonight, “it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attacks” amounts to a confession that he has deliberately chosen to make us all Unsafe because heis the one who single-handedly ensured the death of this Vital Intelligence Tool. This is an extremely straightforward, clear and indisputable fact which even our national press corps ought to have no trouble conveying.
Plus as has been pointed out in several venues-the government is not going to stop eavesdropping just because the Protect America Act is not suddenly in force. For one thing all of the currently authorized taps are still in effect and that authorization remains in effect for at least a year. Second, the Congress already renewed FISA-it did so last November. FISA is still in effect. The big difference-FISA requires the government to get a warrant-and thus justify its actions, which it can do after the fact. Plus the FISA court by all accounts has not turned down too much of what the government has asked for.
But wait there is more:
Every President until George Bush was able to defend the nation by engaging in surveillance under FISA. That even includes the Great and Powerful Warrior Ronald Reagan, who vanquished the incomparably nefarious Soviet Union while adhering to FISA. It was only George Bush who claimed that we would All Die unless FISA was modernized, and it was modernized — repeatedly, to his satisfaction and at his direction.
FISA and the Protect America Act both equally allow eavesdropping on the Terrorists Who Want to Kill Us. The material difference is that FISA requires warrants for eavesdropping on Americans (after the fact, if necessary) while the Protect America Act allows the President to eavesdrop on any Americans without having any oversight at all. The difference does not relate to the ability to eavesdrop on the Terrorists but on the nature and level of oversight from that eavesdropping. Moreover, the FISA Court is and always has been a rubber-stamping tribunal that does not ever block any surveillance on any suspected Terrorists.
Thus, we’re not all going to die under FISA. We’re not “going dark.” FISA is a modern law that was re-written at George Bush’s direction and which he himself said allowed for full surveillance on all of the evil Terrorists and all of their complex, super-modern means of communications.
However that’s not the way all of the defenders of the President are putting it. If anyone has the temerity to say no to the President’s vision of security for the nation-they are a traitor, or a murder, or a terrorist lover. Probably some combination of all three. “Don’t you know that the Islamic wackos are laying in wait to attack us? And the next time it will be worse than 9-11. You will have blood on your hands because you were more concerned about your precious right to be protected in your rights of free association, privacy in communications, and free speech than you were worried about security.”
It is a circular argument and is one the hard core Bush lovers love to use because by attacking one’s patriotism means that they do not have to actually justify their position based on facts. Or refute quotes from the President’s senior advisers that state that this is not about security but about protecting the TELCOM companies because they broke the law. And did so willingly-without it appears even a moment’s remorse.
Plus if it is true that America is under imminent threat from Islamic terrorists-then what about all of that “victory is just around the corner” stuff emanating from John McCain and others about Iraq? If Alqaeda has been “routed” then why is it such a big deal to be more than just a little worried that the government will abuse its new found authority? If there is still such a massive threat from the Islamic wackos out there-then what was Iraq and Afghanistan all about-if it has not made America any safer? Does that mean I’ve actually been right all along and Iraq in particular has been a heinous mistake that has cost trillions of dollars and 4000 American and who knows how many Iraqi lives?
Because if George Bush is correct in his rhetoric-then it belies all the other things he wishes us to believe. So which is it?
This is not a trivial issue. What rights we give up today, Americans will never get back. Say that again, Americans will never get them back. It is a slide down the slippery slope and I can show you where it leads. It leads to government regulation of where you go and who you talk to. Don’t believe me? Ask Spike:
I believe I would find it preferable if people stopped focusing on Edison Chen’s or Gillian Chung’s morality (or the unsightliness of Cecilia Cheung’s nether regions, for that matter) and instead focus on what I believe are the important issues here. People had sex, they lied about it, like that’s the first or last time this is going to happen. It’s a tempest in a teapot. Everyone knows that most Hong Kong stars have no real talent outside of being able to sing on key, memorize dance routines and wear silly clothes. Compared to them, Britney Spears is Billie Holiday. They have very short careers and are quickly forgotten.The real issue is an attack on our freedom of speech and expression, which are clearly expendable when they conflict with the interests of the uber-rich and their toys. And the disgraceful behavior by Hong Kong’s finest, aka the police. They are arresting people for possessing and uploading photographs that the police have said are obscene before the government made any such declaration. The police should not and do not have the power to make this kind of determination!They are holding people in prison without bail.They have asked Interpol to shut down web sites outside of Hong Kong that contain these pictures. (I’m sure Interpol hung up the phone, laughed its collective head off, and then went and looked at all the pictures themselves and then called the HK police “wankers” and decided to spend time hunting terrorists and international jewel thieves as opposed to these jokers.)
In other words, they are acting in the best interests of the billionaires and the triads without regard for the majority of Hong Kong people.
This is where it leads if you don’t stick up for the Bill of Rights and the rule of law. In Lee Kwan Yew’s dictatorship“republic”-they track e-mails, block ISP’s, and sue people who disagree with the Gahmen.
GWB wishes that he could do that.
In China the big Internet companies and Telcoms have willingly climbed in bed with the efforts of the stinking commies to regulate the internet. And in Hong Kong-where there are still supposed to be protections under the Basic Law-they hold people in prison for the crime of linking to naked pictures of two consenting adults.
Substitute the words “wealthy campaign contributors” for Triads in the above paragraphs and you have what the real debate about the Protect America Act is all about. It is only about whether the nation’s largest telecoms will have pending lawsuits, brought by their customers for breaking the law. That is all.
And what’s most tragic? The TELCOMS themselves have abandoned their own culture and tradition in doing so. Matt Blaze sums it up:
A recurring theme in this blog over the last year has been how the sweeping surveillance technology envisioned by the 2007 US Protect America Act introduces fundamental technical vulnerabilities into the nation’s communications infrastructure. These risks should worry law enforcement and the national security community at least as much as they worry civil liberties advocates. A post last October mentioned an analysis that I was writing with Steve Bellovin, Whit Diffie, Susan Landau, Peter Neumann and Jennifer Rexford………
The technical risks created by unsupervised wiretapping on this scale are enormously serious (and reason enough to urge Congress to let this misguided law expire). But safety and security may be subordinated in the debate to more entrenched interests. In particular, AT&T and other communications carriers have been lobbying hard for an amendment that gives them retroactive immunity from any liability they might have had for turning over Americans’ communications and call records to the government, legally or not, before the act passed.
As someone who began his professional career in the Bell System (and who stayed around through several of its successors), the push for telco immunity represents an especially bitter disillusionment for me. Say what you will about the old Phone Company, but respect for customer privacy was once a deeply rooted point of pride in the corporate ethos. There was no faster way to be fired (or worse) than to snoop into call records or facilitate illegal wiretaps, well intentioned or not. And it was genuinely part of the culture; we believed in it, even those of us ordinarily disposed toward a skeptical view of the official company line. Now it all seems like just another bit of cynical, focus-group-tested PR.
But hey, captives sleep safer at night in their chains. And if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear right?
I think they said that on Krystallnacht too……………