HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Feb. 7, 2006 This is the fourth amendment to the constitution of the United States. "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 this is unequivocal, and there are no exceptions or extenuating circumstances. George W. Bush is violating this amendment with his policy of allowing the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant. The defense of this policy is so ludicrous that it would be laughable, if it wasn't such a serious issue. Mr. Bush falsely claims congress authorized warrantless spying when they granted him the right to use all necessary force in the war on terror. Congress gave him the right to take military action, not spy on Americans without a warrant. Equating the authorization of the use of military force with the violation our constitutional rights is absurd. Mr. Bush knows he's violating the fourth amendment. The Bush administration opposed bill s.2659 (to amend FISA of 1978 to modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-U.S. citizens from probable cause to reasonable suspicion) on the grounds that it would violate the fourth amendment. Yet, Mr. Bush is currently allowing the spying on U.S. citizens without any warrant. Many conservatives oppose this warrantless electronic surveillance, but there are those conservatives who would defend this president, if he was caught holding a bloody knife over a dead body. Matt Drudge recently made the false claim that former presidents Clinton and Carter also authorized warrantless searches and it was not considered a scandal. What Mr. Drudge did was selectively quote two executive orders; one was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act signed by Mr. Carter, and the other was a similar executive order signed by Mr. Clinton regarding the physical searches of non-U.S. citizens. Mr. Drudge left out the part of those orders that specifically said the Attorney General was to make sure (certify) that if U.S. citizens were being spied on, than warrants had to be issued. For a more detailed explanation check this link. http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/ This intellectual fraud was plagiarized by my home town newspaper, The Augusta Chronicle and had been repeated ad nauseum by conservative pundits on television. As clearly demonstrated by a full and understanding reading of both executive orders, it is a falsehood. Another defense of the spying program is this little misleading soundbyte: "If Al Queda is calling someone in this country, we want to know about it." No one is saying that spying on terrorists is forbidden. The constitution does say that the government can not spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant. So those opposed to this program also have a simple (but not misleading) soundbyte: Get a warrant! According to the Washington Post, the NSA has intercepted about a thousand phone calls involving citizens of this country, but only ten have had terrorist connections; a fact underreported by the so called liberal media. The Bush adminstration expects U.S. citizens to trust him...that the only people they are interested in spying on are suspected terrorists. But without a system of checks and balances, how are we supposed to know that it is only terrorists they are spying on? There is a good reason why the founding fathers put the fourth amendment in the constitution. The Bush administration objects to the speed with which the courts issue warrants. Again, a nonsensical defense. The Patriot Act allows them to get a warrant seventy-two hours after they do a search. (Actually, this should be struck down also.) Mr. Bush simply has no valid excuse. Mr. Bush has violated the constitution and broken the law (FISA of 1978 which clarifies how electronic surveillance can be done under the fourth amendment). He is the first president since Richard Nixon to spy on Americans without a warrant. When a president knowingly breaks the law, he should be impeached. He has admitted to this impeachable defense, and it is a clear abuse of his power. How would conservatives like this unconditional authority handed over to Hillary Clinton in 2008? ------------ About the author Mark Gelbart: My book, Talk Radio, is a black comedy about a radio talk show host who gets kidnapped and psychologically tortured by a loser. www.mark-gelbart.com Email: agelbart@aol.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
