MG sees and hears no evil
Beyond the certain measures of the Patriot Act, how has the president violated his oath?
So the president is spying on Americans. Big deal. What is your alternative? I know that this war is real. I wonder if you do. Granted, I am curious as to why the president has not secured the borders, but I know how the enemy works, and I know what they are capable of. I wonder if you do. So, how is the government, and in particular, the President of the United States, is supposed to defend this nation and the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? Can’t he direct intelligence assets to spy on Americans? Why not? If what these agencies are doing is not going to be used for prosecution, but instead going to be used for counterespionage and counterterrorism, why not?
George Bush has violated his oath by supporting the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, by signing the campaign finance reform bill and by taking no steps to stop the immigration invasion.
My alternative to spying illegally on Americans? Pretty simple. Don’t spy. One does not defend Americans by destroying America. It is laughable to assert that a government which has knowingly allowed an actual invasion of millions of immigrants should be permitted any leeway when it suddenly claims that it needs to violate the rights of American citizens to deal with a problem it caused.
This reasoning is ludicrous. One might as easily argue: “So the president is killing Jews, big deal, I know this war is real.” No amount of domestic spying is going to prevent the hundreds or thousands of potential terrorists the government has allowed to enter the country from doing whatever they decide to do when they decide to act; one need merely read the reports from Israel or Iraq to ascertain that.
The reason that George Bush wants the government to be able to spy on Americans is to expand central government control over the population. Why? Because that is the nature of central government, to expand whenever and whereever possible. These oft-stated concerns about terrorism are mere window dressing, meant to offer cover for government agencies and officials in the event of another attack so they can claim that they were doing everything possible to prevent it and so should not be held responsible for failing to do so.