following 9/11, president george bush allowed the national security agency the ability to secretly wiretap american civilians without a court order, all in the name of fighting terrorism. when this was revealed a couple years ago, there was a lot of debate and anger over this, as it was considered an invasion of privacy on a scale previously unheard of. many lawsuits ensued against telecoms like at&t, verizon, etc.
today, the democratically led senate voted 69 to 28 in favor of broadening the government's spy powers and providing immunity to the telephone companies that participated in the illegal spying, as well as killing all pending lawsuits against them. senators barack obama and john mccain voted in favor of the bill, while coincidentally senator hilary clinton voted against it. in the past, obama had long opposed the idea, but his flip-flop on the subject is unfortunate to say the least. apparently now that obama is the presumptive democratic presidential nominee, and barring some sort of melt-down, will be the next president of the united states, he feels the president having more, unwarranted powers is a good thing. of course it's a good thing, cause he won't be a regular civilian; he'll be president. of course, president bush is very happy and he'll be signing it into law shortly.
once again, the democrats show absolutely no backbone. they talk big, but when it comes down to it, they always crumble. they're afraid of looking weak on national security? well that's a legitimate concern, but what would you call someone who says one thing, does another, and never seems to stand up for their own principles when push comes to shove? i can think of a few things. let's start with "turn coat" for example. or "yellow." or "pussy." only politicians seem to be able to get away with this kind of behavior. if your doctor or professor or parents displayed this kind of behavior, would you stand for it? sometimes i think the democrats don't ever deserve to be in power. at least with the republicans, they tend to show the courage of their convictions, no matter how ludicrous or stone-aged.
those in favor of the bill say that you have nothing to worry about so long as you don't "have al qaeda on your speed dial." well, that's not the point. the point is that the government now has the legal support to invade your privacy whenever it wants. there is a reason why positions of authority have checks and balances and limitations; it's to prevent the abuse of such power. history has shown that whether power is abused depends on who wields it and how they wield it. there is no guarantee the next president will have any restraint.
realistically, if the government wants to spy in on you, they'll do it, legal or not. there is no need to officially legislate it, thereby reducing your rights and handing it over to the government. this sort of power swap is dangerous, because when you give the government more powers, it's next to impossible in getting the power back.
(source)
today, the democratically led senate voted 69 to 28 in favor of broadening the government's spy powers and providing immunity to the telephone companies that participated in the illegal spying, as well as killing all pending lawsuits against them. senators barack obama and john mccain voted in favor of the bill, while coincidentally senator hilary clinton voted against it. in the past, obama had long opposed the idea, but his flip-flop on the subject is unfortunate to say the least. apparently now that obama is the presumptive democratic presidential nominee, and barring some sort of melt-down, will be the next president of the united states, he feels the president having more, unwarranted powers is a good thing. of course it's a good thing, cause he won't be a regular civilian; he'll be president. of course, president bush is very happy and he'll be signing it into law shortly.
once again, the democrats show absolutely no backbone. they talk big, but when it comes down to it, they always crumble. they're afraid of looking weak on national security? well that's a legitimate concern, but what would you call someone who says one thing, does another, and never seems to stand up for their own principles when push comes to shove? i can think of a few things. let's start with "turn coat" for example. or "yellow." or "pussy." only politicians seem to be able to get away with this kind of behavior. if your doctor or professor or parents displayed this kind of behavior, would you stand for it? sometimes i think the democrats don't ever deserve to be in power. at least with the republicans, they tend to show the courage of their convictions, no matter how ludicrous or stone-aged.
those in favor of the bill say that you have nothing to worry about so long as you don't "have al qaeda on your speed dial." well, that's not the point. the point is that the government now has the legal support to invade your privacy whenever it wants. there is a reason why positions of authority have checks and balances and limitations; it's to prevent the abuse of such power. history has shown that whether power is abused depends on who wields it and how they wield it. there is no guarantee the next president will have any restraint.
realistically, if the government wants to spy in on you, they'll do it, legal or not. there is no need to officially legislate it, thereby reducing your rights and handing it over to the government. this sort of power swap is dangerous, because when you give the government more powers, it's next to impossible in getting the power back.
(source)
|