Are You Being Listened To?

Should a world power be above the law? Should the leader? The laws of a country should have no question marks when it comes to the leadership of a country. But in the United States it seems that legal and illegal acts are tossed around in the same basket.

Do the mass majority of the citizens know what is going on? If you asked a man on the street if America was part of the Geneva Convention would they know the truth or simply assume that of course it was. Would the average American know that there has not been an act of war that was legally carried out since War World II by their country? That instead the government changes the naming of those very acts so that military uprisings do not have to follow the legal course of the land? When the President of the United States blatantly changes public laws to work in his favor does he have it announced to the public? How many people in the States know that the 4th Amendment was broken by the Bush administration? United States Constitution

Fourth Amendment

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.

That Amendment has not been held true since 2002 when Bush allowed for the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls. The day after the policy went through Bush said that it was okay because he had ordered it. One small problem with that. Bush didn't have the right to. He violated the law and has done so since that time. In effect George Bush has allowed his security people to listen in on anyone's phone calls. During the Vietnam War illegal eavesdropping happened also. The difference was that when it was brought to the public notice the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted which imposed strict limits on intelligence gathering on American soil. Warrants had to be utilized before wiretapping could happen. Checks and balances were used to insure that a citizen was not having their civil liabilities violated. And then came Bush. Warrants aren't necessary if the National Security Agency deems a person to be of interest. It all now falls under the Patriot Act. Except for it's doesn't. President Bush did not ask Congress to include provisions for the N.S.A. domestic surveillance program as part of the Patriot Act and has not sought any other laws to authorize the operation. Not only phone calls are being monitored but also emails. There are broad "data mining" systems that allow it to analyze information about the communications of millions of Americans that have nothing to do with the military or government. This issue has been in the courts. On January 31, 2007 the ACLU returned to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. What came out of that was the president is still claiming the "inherent authority" to engage in warrantless eavesdropping even when there was an announcement from his own administration that wiretapping warrants are now subject to FISA court approval. His own lawyers stated that nothing would stop Bush from his current practices. What other illegal acts has this administration pursued? Kidnapping, torture, illegal surveillance, political spying, abuse of the material witness statutes are among allegations that have been raised. In the coming weeks I will be exploring these allegations and reporting back on what is legal and what would put someone in prison. That is if someone wasn't sitting at the Oval Office. additional resources: http://www.nsawatch.org/nsa-illegal.html http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/CPC/NYT_15cnd-program.html