Amnesty for the Real Bad Guys. Guess Who Those are...

El Supremo Presidente
[has anyone checked if there's there a "signing statement" somewhere in the constitution document?]

The Executive has grown to be the most powerful of the three branches of our governmnet, but Bush has broken the law in expanding presidential power. Another tricky Dick, Nixon, tried to do this but was caught and the rule of law restored. But, back then Congress and others within the administration had the guts and the honor to be patriots first.

Obviously, this president doesn't have much credibility left, and most Americans can't wait for him and his cohorts to leave for good. The incredible thing is that Congressional Democrats still behave like little puppies seeking to please the master. The US Senate with the help of several Dems passed a FISA/spy/limit civil liberties bill Bush had asked for. The House recessed without taking any action.

Bush has said he'd not sign just an extension of the present legislation, because he wants to protect Americans from the bad guys. Yet, he's willing to leave them ..unprotected instead of a temporary fix! Yeah, whatever. I'm sure you've heard much about this debate already, but do you know why Bush is adamant about giving retroactive amnesty to the telcos which surrender everything they had on us to the Bush administration? Why should they get amnesty? I thought the Republicans and all other patriots were against any amnesty. Or, are they only against giving amnesty to immigrants who've worked for American companies (and many other well-to-do Americans) and have lived in the US for many years as law-abiding people after their initial trespass? Do you see a double standard here?



Why is it OK to give amnesty to Blackwater? To corporations that rip off the US treasury? [check this Bill Moyers Journal on overisight and waste] This is not even touching upon the fraud perpetrated on the American public as the necessity of war... I hope the latter is resolved after the election in November, and I'd like to see some serious criminal charges leveled against the evil doers!

Amendment IV
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.

Everybody knows that when the government wants a warrant it gets one. It can also get an indictment as well. But, this creates a record, it gets due process take its course. The records are very important as we can go back, re-examine, and correct our current law & policies. We know, for example, that the FBI had spied on John Lennon, not because the Beatles or Lenon were revolutionaries (actually they were businessmen) but perhaps because Lenon sang, "Imagine there's no heaven"...

There's evidence that suggests Bush had started the illegal spying even before 9-11-01, and that the lawsuits against the telcos will reveal that if no amnesty is given to them. That's why Bush wants not only the extra (and probably unconstitutional) powers but amnesty too.

As far as I know, the constitution has not been amended, so the government must obtain a warrant "by oat and affirmation" before it spies on us. Since it's an automatic procedure (they ask, they get court permission) to obtain a warrant--even days after the spying has started--then why Bush didn't bother doing so?

I'm sick and tired of being treated as a little child with impressionable mind by the Bush government. The politics of fear get me agitated instead of docile.