Good article by Andrew Bard Schmookler at CommonDreams.org
He asks why was Monica Lewinsky more deserving of attention by the media than possible direct violation of the law by GW Bush? Bush has publically admitted to ordering warrantless searches of Americans. He claims he has the legal right to do so. Many many legal scholars disagree. It appears maybe even John Ashcroft disagreed. And, we won't know if he violated the law because if he tells us about the secret spying program, he would have to kill us.
Bush has claimed that he ordered the warrantless searches to protect Americans. The one example provided by the administration is preventing a guy from toppling the Brooklyn bridge with a blowtorch. And this, “The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. ‘There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States,’ the former F.B.I. official said.” [New York Times, 1/17/06].
I really like this though "Is the reason for the media’s casualness in treating this administration’s possible running roughshod over the Constitution that the media don’t think this story will grab an audience the way, say, stains on a blue dress did?"
There is a question that needs answering.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I can't think of anything worse than having John Ashcroft thinking that civil liberties have been tread upon. If the guy responsible for the Patriot Act thinks something smells, even "disenchanted" (that was the word, right) kids like me should take notice.
I'm from Westchester and I saw in the Journal News that Richard Brodsky introduced an amendment to the state constitution to take on Bush's unitary theory of the executive as well as protect other privacy rights. On the radio Brodsky blasted Bush's actions, especially on wiretapping. It was great! I'm glad to see someone out there taking a stand against this craziness.
Post a Comment