Badges? We Ain't Got no Badges. We Don't Need no Stinking Badges!

Everyone is a suspect, unless proven otherwise. The destruction continues.
I thought that we were a nation of laws and not a dictatorship. Are we subjects in a state where a divine king rules in God's name? Don't we have certain rules, like the...Constitution to uphold? But then again, these are difficult times; maybe we should bend the rules a bit. Or should we? I mean I can imagine several extreme situations where it would be appropriate to sacrifice an innocent child, to rape a person or to boil a limb if this would make the suspect talk. What if [insert extreme scenario here]?

If we are the land of the free and the home of the brave we must live up to our duty to protect our rights. The super-secret spying apparatus ordered by President Bush is illegal and not fit for a society where the people's civil liberties are respected. There have to be checks and balances, and in this case judicial overview. Even in this turbulent times where too many Americans are motivated by fear and willing to sacrifice their rights under the PATRIOT Act, there are some guidelines to be observed. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (most commonly known as FISA), a secret intelligence court was created to authorize government wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations. Now, Bush did not apply to get permission from this court, nor his spying was on foreign subjects--a clear violation of US law in my opinion.

Let's see what our Constitution has to say about this:
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 (Amendment IV)

I think it's quite clear under which circumstances and conditions the government can conduct reasonable search and seizures; and, please don't miss the important point about "probable cause" and, "by oath or affirmation." Where are those arch-conservatives, the "strict constructionists," those who call our national document "the constitution in exile" to stand up and defend it? Of course, they are absent, for they're hypocrites and activists who want to use "creative law-making" to curb individual rights and civil liberties. They are the same people who don't see the sentence, "a well regulated Militia" in the Second Amendment, and, thus, they want to extend the right to bear arms to include any killing machine invented!
A Nixonian Approach

Normally, we wouldn't spend too much time on the rants and actions of an inarticulate simpleton, except that this buffoon is the CEO of the country. Last time I checked, the President was bound by the Constitution. Actually, every US president swears to "uphold and protect" it. So, what am I missing here? Bush just admitted that he authorized secret spying on US citizens outside the scope of the law. Even the conservative senator Graham (R-SC) said, "I don't know of any legal basis" for Bush's secret spying. The chairman of the Senate's judiciary committee, Arlen Specter (R-PA) promised to hold hearings early next year regarding this issue, commenting that "there is no doubt that this is inappropriate."

This Republican-controlled Congress does not investigate. What for? It's not likely they care. Most of them are social-darwinists! Never mind that the corruption stench is now unbearable; never mind that the country has been dragged into a costly war based on a pack of lies. Corruption knows no political parties, and the Democrats had their share in the 40 or so years they controlled Congress. But the Republicans managed to surpass this not only in magnitude but in the relatively short time of 5 years. We're seeing high crimes committed by persons in the executive and legislative branches, but no action is taken. I understand, they don't want to investigate themselves, and there are no ethics in the Ethics Committee. In the perverse moral universe of the current powerlogs, theocrats, and greedy fatcats, Clinton's sexual tryst was a much greater sin; a sin worth being impeached for! Can someone give Bush the thingy that got Clinton into trouble? Please! If this won't start the impeachment process [and I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen], at least Bush may calm down a bit. Give him some "Jesus juice" too. He seems very frustrated these days, doesn't he? A frustrated and a mean person like him with the kind of power at his disposal, is a very dangerous man to have in the White House.

"And during these holiday seasons, we thank our blessing" G.W.Bush, Belvoir, VA, Dec. 10, 2004.

Addendum: Today I came across a great editorial by The Nation. The editors point out that Bush's arguments--regarding presidential power and national security--were the same arguments used by Nixon who employed a host of federal agencies to spy, harass, and violate the civil liberties of many Americans, like the sustained wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr. The editorial reminds us that, "It needs to be repeated that in 1974, the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon included abuse of presidential power based on warrantless wiretaps and illegal surveillance."
So, let's win back at least one chamber of the US Congress in the 2006 midterm elections, because that's the only way to have serious investigations. In other words, subpoena power!