Friday, July 06, 2007

President free to violate law as long as he is not caught

I'm baffled by the logic of this one:

Yahoo News: Court dismisses lawsuit on spying program

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that the ACLU could not bring suit alleging that warrantless wiretapping is illegal because they can't prove that they were actually targeted by the wiretapping because by its nature it is secret. That raises the problem of course of then defining who exactly COULD challenge this program?

This despite the fact that one of the judges stated publicly that he believed the program was both unconstitutional and in violation of the FISA act of 1978.

So the lesson here is that the Bush administration can do anything they want without fear of judicial review as long as the person they are doing it to cannot prove they are specifically targeted. Lets see where that could lead:

1) Currently the program only intercepts calls from the US to foreign soil. But now that this ruling is in place, what is to stop the government from tapping US citizens at home? As long as they can ensure that no one can prove they individually were tapped they would be home free.

2) Internet snooping? No problem as long as you can't prove it.

3) Tracking via your cell phone? No problem as long as you can't prove it.

4) Your tax records? Your personal health records? check and check.

5) A camera in your bedroom? As far as I can tell, as long as no one could find the camera, they are free to do that too.

And I'll leave you with a few choice quotes:

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. ~Abraham Lincoln


Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. ~Woodrow Wilson

We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it. ~William Faulkner

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

1 comment:

Paul said...

I haven't commented.

Not because I don't care, but because I am too disgusted to talk further.



That is all.