Well, I’m back in the Land O’ The Free. Or am I? It seems there was a lot of dust kicked up over President Bush’s eavesdropping program, including impeachment consideration for this supposed breach of Constitutional etiquette.
Now we come to learn that such eavesdropping isn’t just for republicans anymore. It turns out the democrats’ favorite democrat Bill Clinton had an interest in listening in on chatty telephone conversations from the late Princess Diana. We haven’t been told the purpose for the intrusion and aren’t likely to ever know as the intent and result of the eavesdropping program has been bottled up under the all-encompassing protection of “national security.”
Not sure where the connection between national security and Princess Di comes in, but I’ll go along with it just for my own entertainment. Because I do find it quite ironic and just a bit funny to discover that this was being done by the very same group of people who have claimed the erosion of privacy rights under President Bush. They tell us Bush has essentially created a police state for merely tuning in to hear what potential terrorists were plotting, not what hat Lady Di was going to be wearing at Hat Day.
No worries about this one making too much of a stink for the former president. The mainstream news media is would never dare ask Mr. Clinton to explain any of his rather unusual activities. It just wouldn’t be polite – unless, of course, he decided to become a republican.
16 comments:
At the risk of sounding partisan (and God knows that never happens here) I would just like to point out that technically Princess Di was not an American citizen and therefore not guaranteed any civil rights that are bestowed (or should I say were bestowed) under the Constitution. So for those of us who object to wiretapping on the grounds that it violates the civil liberties of Americans (i.e. me) this is not a real strong argument. Besides, being that this was probably the only remaining way in which the Princess' privacy could be violated, wasn't this just a formality?
You apologists are all the same. You missed the main point. We have been hearing that Bush is evil because he has ordered eavesdropping on conversations and yet the same basic people making this complaint are and were supporters of the Clinton Administration doing the same thing. It's irony, don't you get it? Or don't you do irony before 5 p.m.?
Irony huh? Like supending civil liberties in the name of fredom? And while I do not doubt the power of the fourth estate, in response to your last paragraph I would say that the Supreme Court would never dare ask Mr. Bush to explain any of his unusual activites - unless of course he decided to become a democrat. That game cuts both ways too I guess. I think it is less an indictment on Clinton or any other one individual than it is the entire political process we have here. I am moving. To New Zealand.
By the way, I actually liked the defense of in the name of National Security. These days all you need are vague references for defense. Like a color coded threat level, "hatred for our freedom", and of course the actual term "terrorist" and its' current legal definition. I think this is a very encouraging trend.
Not only an illogical point, but based on WRONG FACTS to boot.
N.B.:
U.S. denies tapping Diana's phone
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The United States' super-secret eavesdropping agency said it had 39 classified documents containing references to the late Diana, Princess of Wales, but never targeted her phone conversations for monitoring. Those documents were previously released in response to a Freedom of Information Request in 1998, the agency noted.
The statement by the National Security Agency comes amid media reports in London about secret recordings of Diana's telephone communications that apparently surfaced during the British investigation into her 1997 death in a Paris car crash.
"As NSA has made clear in the past, the 39 NSA-originated and NSA-controlled documents referenced in a response to a Freedom of Information Act request in 1998 only contained references to the princess and she was never the communicant," agency spokesman Don Weber said. "NSA did not target Princess Diana's communications. Furthermore, NSA has co-operated with the investigations into this tragic incident to the full extent of the law."
In a later article, the NSA said there was a "treasure trove" of information on Diana from eavesdropping and implied the work was done by another U.S. agency.
Who is N.B.?
Okay. And so your point is? The basic misunderstanding here is that you are equating all forms of "listening in". The issue has never been whether the government should be able to all tap phones. The issue has been whether the government can tap the phones of US citizens without going to court. That is the constitutional issue. Bush's phone tapping was clearly illegal under FISA. Tapping the phones of foreigners has never been an issue or illegal. I'm no lawyer, but the constitution forbides "unreasonable searches" by the government, not all searches. To insure searches are reasonable we generally require the courts to pass on this by sanctioning the act with a search warrant. FISA contemplated that this was not always practical and included a provision allowing court review after the fact. Bush ignored this law. There is no eveidence that anyone during the Clinton administration ignored FISA.
N.B. means "note well".
All of you with irony deficiancy have missed my point entirely. I wasn't raising this to demonstrate that Clinton did it too so therefore what Bush is doing is OK and Constitutional. It was, as my last sentence indicates, a case study on how media favorites get a pass and Bush gets slammed in 300 editorials for what he does. The Diana story had no shelf life and I am wondering if a story could be found that was negative about the "potential" eavesdropping, especially as it relates to Clinton's involvement.
WOW! I get it. I guess he/they don't because they can't see the bias. You sure struck a nerve with someone!
Sorry I've been absent. Did 4 straight 15 hour days this week.
Since my intelligence and sense of irony was questioned I will respond once more. I do apologize, as I was not aware that this was in fact an entry about bias in the media against the current administration. I originally read this as a complaint regarding the hypocrisy that exists within the criticisms of Bush’s wiretapping program from a group of people whose leader was guilty of a similar act. I suppose I came to that conclusion simply because the media bias angle was buried in the last paragraph and as you later responded in a comment that the main point was that “We have been hearing that Bush is evil because he has ordered eavesdropping on conversations and yet the same basic people making this complaint are and were supporters of the Clinton Administration doing the same thing.”
Now assuming that I agree that what Clinton and Bush did was the same thing (which I don’t) this argument still only works if I am somehow implying support for the Democrats (I’m not). I don’t like Clinton or the Democrats either. I truly believe both were wrong and that one of them crossed the line into what I would consider unconstitutional territory. Now, while I do not think what Clinton did was unconstitutional, it was certainly wrong, an abuse of power, and most importantly a waste of resources and taxpayer money. As to your media bias, the media should have covered it more but I also understand that Princess Di’s phone being tapped is less interesting and newsworthy to Americans than the possibility that theirs may be. Again, the Princess was not protected from our constitution – I am. I am surprised that the story did not last longer simply because in my experience the term Princess Diana in a news story generally multiplies interest exponentially but who knows.
Now while I do not think this was your main point I do agree that there is a bias in the print and cable media (minus Fox News – they are fair and balanced) against Bush. However, I would contend that Bush is the recipient of a favorable bias from Corporate America, The Supreme Court, other forms of media (talk radio, blogs) as well as several other bodies. That is the way the world works. So yes, I see the bias; I just did not see the bias as the main point of the entry. I caught the irony too. But lets be real that irony or hypocrisy exists on both sides. Take this quote from Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson calling for accountability from top White House aides Libby and Rove by saying “Something needs to be said that is a clear message that the rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray.” Actually, when the Republican Senator made those remarks, she was calling for accountability from President Clinton in 1999. More recently, in regard to accountability for Libby and Rove, she referred to perjury as a “technicality.”
Maybe we can’t agree on this one issue but I think we all know that these people (Hillary, Kerry, Bush etc.) are all self-serving opportunists and are full of hypocrisy, or to be nice, irony. Even me, with my irony deficiency – that was a cute play on words by the way – can see that.
Don't be angry, I thought you were Nick. I also think I made up the main point of my story after you called me on the first issue. However, I was just having fun in what I wrote originally and then fun again following your responses. Fortunately, nobody reads this stuff anyway and, like the Princess Di story, it doesn't linger.
Oh I am not angry, just right....
or left
Me dont understand poloticks
YOU GO GIRL!
Post a Comment