Who was it who said:
The object of terrorism is to try to force us to change our way of life, is to force us to retreat, is to force us to be what we're not. And that's -- they're going to fail. They're simply going to fail.
so we have to do everything in our power to protect this way off life. But what is this way of life? Pursuit of happiness? Living to you capabilities, living out the american dream of the world being your oyster. Istn;t it? And all that, of course, with the least possible interference from the state, and also, all within the law. or at least most of it.
But then we read this:
President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night.
Strange how the things can change? One can almost say that under the Bush Administration, the US is going a long way toward saving the terrorists time, money, and effort. Almost doing to the US what they have planned for us.
While other people's children are "making sacrifices", "showing their resolve", and "staying the course" to "bring democracy to Iraq", the ... in the White House is chipping away at democracy at home. Where is the "balance of power" if the President is empowered by Executive Order to adopt extra-Constitutional practices?
America is a different place maybe in a reaction to 9/11, but certainly not due to the events themselves.
Afterall, if people spied upon were valid suspects, the Bush administration could easily have gotten wiretap warrants for them.
This was not necessary to prevent suspects from finding out. There are special national security courts that handle these things. And they almost always grant warrant requests.
There was no reason to have this program, except that the Bush administration didn't think they had enough evidence to legally wiretap people. So they send people to Guantanamo, and forget the key, and they decided to break the law, but make up a cover story.
It's Bush trying to act like the laws don't apply to him. This is a bad thing to let any president do, whoever he is.
mmmmm first of all, it might turn into a flame war, as does msot "political" discussions. and secondly it seems this is in the wrong forum.But i agree with alot of what you say. I mean Bush is always tlakign about defending democracy and freedom. . . . LOL two words. . . patriot Acts. . . which gives american citizens less freedom, all for the cause of "national secruity", BAH!I don't want to get started on this but its all just so twisted. You really don't know who and what to believe with the BUSH administration.*sigh*
you can also add this, before us invaded iraq al queda is unheard off but after the invasion they became the biggest threat.its like a bad analogy and another thing US payed the debt of pakistan, which today harbor some top terrorist in their province and their government.how come they don't invade valenzuela (no offense) but isn't it easier for them to attack the US directly. and they know valenuela has ties to russia and a big no-no to the USthe two bush has the same mistake: IRAQ, one helped iraq because he thought it was the better way to do it. the other one invaded it because it's the simpler way to correct the mistake.they also shouldn't hang saddam, it is a sad thing that people don't know that saddam sold some of the tanks to help his country. that's why when the us invaded it, the wondered what happened to the tanks