Wisdoma

Bush has not been concerned about the invasion of people across our Southern land border, so why would anyone expect him to be concerned with security through the ports and access by water.

Allowing the UAE to manage our ports? You have got to be kidding. I’m not sure why any foreign company or government should be given that task, whether the UK, UAE, or anyone else.

Bush might have a different opinion about security if he let the UAE manage, hire, and control the secret service and access to the White House.

Attorneys for murderer Michael Morales are trying to get a San Jose federal judge to agree that it is cruel and unusual punishment to impose the death penalty by lethal injection. They are concerned that the chemicals may not act fast enough, letting someone breath for up to a minute in pain.

A whole 60 seconds of pain !

Michael Morales was found guilty of knocking a young girl unconscious. Then dragging her away, raping her, and then stabbing her to death.

For that California taxpayers get to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal appeals - not deciding whether this guy should die - but whether in some instances the injection method does not act fast enough.

Frankly, 60 seconds of pain is not nearly long enough for this guy.

The death sentence is obviously cruel and unusual punishment for petty theft. Is there anything that could be considered cruel and unusual for Morales?

Whatever happened to a rope and a tree?

If speed is what his attorneys want, does France have any leftover guillotines?

Although I am no fan of Bush’s spying program, as he could accomplish the same while working within the framework of the law and in conjunction with the other two branches of government, the lawsuit by the ACLU is quite outrageous.

Consider these allegations from the complaint:

“Some of the plaintiffs, in connection with scholarship, journalism, or legal representation, communicate with people whom the United States believes or believed to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations.”

“Some of the communications of ACLU staff concerned individuals whom the Justice Department’s website describes as ‘linked to the September 11th investigation’.”

“ACLUF attorneys and human rights advisors have communicated by telephone and email with individuals whom the CIA has alleged are associated with terrorist organizations.”

“The government has attempted to deport some of [Mr. Ayad's] clients because of suspected ties to terrorism. For example, the government suspected some of his clients of supporting, or having ties to, the military wing of Hezbollah, a group that has been designated a terrorist organization by the Department of State.”

In a nutshell, these individuals are communicating with terrorists, who are not US citizens and not in the US. The communications are not intended to protect the security of the country. Rather, the goal is apparently to find ways to prevent these persons from being imprisoned. Another implicit subplot in the complaint is an attempt to gather information for political use to harm the Republican Presidency.

Wouldn’t it have been refreshing for the ACLU to say “We are trying to win the war against terrorists by infiltrating their organizations and to obtain information about them. To do that we are engaged in various activities and communications.”

Instead, we get allegations suggesting that whenever someone, anyone in the world, is accused of being a terrorist, these persons run to their aid - particularly if the terrorism is targeted at the United States. Repulsive.

These terrorists are seeking nothing less than the downfall of Western Civilization and to kill all of us. The ACLU terrorism complaint highlights the need for vigilence and spying. Now, if the Bush administration could only do it right so it is not sidetracked by these issues. What an unnecessary mess.

In the aftermath of revelations about President Bush’s use of wiretaps without a warrant and without consent, it has been mentioned that President Clinton permitted the interception of millions of phone calls and emails under a secret project called Echelon.

Clinton’s malfeasance does not justify Bush’s actions. Didn’t we learn as children that two wrongs do not make a right?

Perhaps Bush’s actions are symptomatic of the police state the US has become in the view of whoever resides in the people’s White House.

It has also been claimed that the disclosure of Bush’s wiretaps has aided the enemy and let them know what the US is up to. Huh? While attacking the messenger is a common tactic to try and deflect attention, this has to go down as one of the dumbest arguments the government has made this last year. Even if a warrant to wiretap had been properly obtained it would be secret and unknown to those being investigated.

The problem is not wiretapping conversations of those communicating with terrorists. That can be done in a legal manner and the law provides the mechanism for keeping those actions secret. The problem is making the wiretaps in an unlawful manner.

President Bush has said Article II of the US Constitution gives him that authority because he is the Commander in Chief. Evidently, Mr. Bush has never read the constitution. Article II states as pertinent:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States….” Bush is not Commander in Chief of the United States as he claims. He commands the army. The President can only be Commander in Chief of the people, self-assuming the mantle of doing whatever he wants in the name of protecting as a parent his children the people, if this is a police state.

President Bush says he has authorized and will continue to authorized wiretaps and eavesdropping without court approved warrants in the battle against terrorism. This is despite the existence of a secret court created for the purpose of reviewing and expediting sensitive wiretapping requests.

If the wiretapping has involved US citizens is there any reason why Bush should not be impeached? To argue that the nation’s security permits any action whatsoever, without any attempt to comply with legal due process, is to argue for a dictator, a Julius Caesar Bush who can proclaim any authority regardless of constitutional limits.

If an emergency arises and there is no time to acquire an initial subpoena, did anyone think of going to the court afterwards with the facts and undoubtedly justification for future snooping? Apparently not. Just an unbridled claim to unlimited power.

On the other hand, if the wiretapping has involved foreigners in the US then I have less of a concern. But a line has to be drawn protecting the rights of US citizens - the rights many founders lost their lives fighting for to escape the tyranny of a King who believed the ends justified the means.

There is no question that the Bush administration is secretive, and issue openly discussed in the media for years. But now we have had reports of secret prisons, walls of secrecy preventing the people from knowing what actions are being taken in their name, and now secret wiretaps.

It is time for King Bush to understand that the “war” on terror, the “war” on drugs, or the “war” on anything else is not a blank check for him to assume dictatorial policies he assumes are needed to protect us.