What I hear in the sub-text when Republican apologists and politicians talk about the wire tapping scandal is this; Americans don't need rights. Particularly white, heterosexual, Christian Americans would never need rights. Rights are for criminals who want to con their way out of going to jail. And rights are for people who talk against the government, which you should never do. So why does anyone in America need rights?
I'm beginning to think that the people on the right aren't familiar with the fundamentals of American democracy, and aren't comfortable with it when they see it in practice.
A government where the President can do anything without accounting to the people, can torture anyone, spy at will, and start a war without cause, has a name. That name is a dictatorship. You know, dictatorship, like George Bush said; "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator." At one point I thought it was a joke. Yeah, not so much now.
I'm sure I couldn't find a supporter of the right who would say direcly that they want a dictatorship. Nah, they are all too true American for that. But actions speak louder than words. If you give up all of your freedoms then what is the difference? In a Democracy the people have a vital role in monitoring the government and holding it to account. If you abrigate that role back to a party or an ideology you are foresaking your birthright and that is what will ultimately destroy this country.
Oh, wait, I suppose there is one right they still want; the right to keep and bear arms. But not for taking down the government, which was the original reason to have that right, but simply to protect their property.
Posted by jherr at January 11, 2006 01:05 PMDo we get to freely elect our four-year dictator from a pool of worthy candidates? And can we balance his dictatorship by freely electing a congress full of independent-thinking people with differing viewpoints who come from all over this vast country?
And can we have a constitution and judicial system that keeps our dictator accountable to us at all times?
Cause I'm all for that kind of dictatorship.
Oh wait, that wouldn't fly. Kinda wrecks the definition of the dictatorship.
Posted by: Jacqueline at January 12, 2006 06:31 AMNice way to dodge the point. Do you think you need your civil rights or not? Do you believe in a right to privacy, the 4th amendment, which has been violated illegally by Bush?
Posted by: jherr at January 12, 2006 03:33 PMYes, I need my civil rights.
Lawyers will determine whether or not Bush broke the law.
I have always, from the time I was in Jr. High and there was a controversy over school officials searching our lockers for drugs, been okay with "the man" monitoring me. Listen to my phone calls. Search my property. Let me know what you find. I'm clean. And I have NEVER been able to get away with anything anyway! Even skipping school! But I also understand that evidence can be easily manufactured and misinterpreted and when it comes down to your word against someone else's, and third parties have to determine who is more credible, lives can be ruined.
Lori is the one who taught me not to trust the government. :)
Posted by: Jacqueline at January 13, 2006 06:31 AMAnd thus, through your inherintly contradictory statement you prove my point. You pay lip service to needing some theoretical 'rights' but then have no interest in protecting them since, well, your a fine upstanding white Christian woman. Why would you ever be in trouble with the law?
"Those who would give up some of their liberty in order to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin
Posted by: jherr at January 13, 2006 07:55 AMI don't see how your two paragraphs tie together. The very first thing I said was that I do need my rights. The very last thing I said was that I don't trust the government.
All I said in the middle is that I'm a nerd. Nerds have rights too.
Posted by: Jacqueline at January 13, 2006 02:48 PMThe middle paragraph was the most important.
"I have always... been okay with "the man" monitoring me. Listen to my phone calls. Search my property. Let me know what you find. I'm clean..."
You don't care if you have rights or not because you are 'clean'.
Posted by: jherr at January 13, 2006 06:22 PMI absolutely do care that I have rights. The regulations are what keep our society from breaking down and we need them in place.
Posted by: Jacqueline at January 14, 2006 11:50 AMWow. We finally agree.
The facts in this case couldn't be more clear. The President illegally wiretapped potentially hundreds of thousands of Americans without getting proper warrants or the consent of Congress. What's even worse is that he could have gotten those warrants through the fast and lenient FISA court, but chose not to, for reasons that appear to stem from his arrogance alone.
What's perhaps even more insulting is the spin that we have been subjected to. Clearly you have not fallen for the assertions of right wingers such as Rush Limbaugh that the FISA court was inadequate. As you well know they handled over 16,000 warrant requests and turned down only four. And they allow for wire-tapping up to 72 hours without a warrant.
And as we both agree the notion that the President could have saved us from 9-11 having wiretapped in this manner is equally as ludicrous. Clearly, as I know you can attest, the only difference between what he did and what he could have done is that he acted without a warrant.
To think that Limbaugh and Hannity would try and convince informed people such as ourselves of these silly notions is laughable.
It's nice to see that someone as intelligent as yourself can see through all of the spin, keep an open mind about her President, and support his impeachment over these high crimes.
This has never been about whether or not the President has the right to wiretap, he always has. It's been about his arrogant illegal use of wiretapping without the warrant of a very friendly court. Republicans, such as yourself, have always held their leaders to the highest legal standards. And in this decision to impeach George Herbert Walker Bush you are once again putting principles over party and petty partisan politics.
Posted by: jherr at January 14, 2006 06:13 PMI will refer to my previous comment that lawyers will determine whether or not Bush broke the law.
You guys have been trying to impeach this president since he was elected. Let's see if this mud sticks. If you discover something valid, I will support it.
Posted by: Jacqueline at January 17, 2006 08:57 AMActually I haven't been trying to impeach him from day one. That was what the Republicans did to Clinton. I decided he need to be impeached after it was clear that he would misuse 9/11 as a fake excuse for ousting Saddam Hussein in a move that I knew would destablize the region and end our position as a world moral leader.
Posted by: jherr at January 17, 2006 09:22 AMI'm sorry I thought we were going after the current President. Now we're moving to impeach the previous President Bush? I need to get up on my politics.
Posted by: eigga49 at January 17, 2006 09:25 AMSorry, my bad. G. W. Bush.
Posted by: jherr at January 17, 2006 09:30 AMThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)