USA Today has released a report that with the NSA is collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans that probably represents billions of call. The data has been collected since 9/11 from the big three - AT&T, Verizon, and Bellsouth (soon to be AT&T). These records include businesses, government offices and individuals not suspected of anything. The Bush Administration says they are within the law. Members of congress are less then pleased with Arlen Specter, R-PA calling for a congressional hearing. CLick here for a mini Q&A about the records collecting.
Wow, Bush just keeps setting in it over and over again. I am starting to think he is aiming for a new record in low approval. Many may claim that the records are irrelevant, after its the same records your cell carrier may send you every month with the bill. You know, what numbers you called, when and for how long. Of course, most neglect to mention that these records alone, when cross referenced with the names attached to those numbers (and you can't tell me the CIA isn't doing that), can tell lots about your day to day habits and living style. Long story short, the information is a gateway that violates the privacy regardless if the conversation itself is being recorded or not.
Its also telling that unlike the illegal tapping controversy, the republicans and democrats seem to be equally appalled about this one. Clearly they where not aware it was going on. I am willing to bet that other then yes-man Gonzalez, almost no one in the DoJ are aware of what was going on. Its strikes me as strange that Bush can claim its legal, but seems to go out of his way to avoid those questions of legality. This constant violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, while claiming to protect is why there is a seperation of powers.
Speaking of seperation of powers, funny thing about that. Apparently Bush has decided that he is a one man Supreme Court. Bush has claimed that he can ignore more then 750 laws he signed into law during his administration if he believes it voilates the Constituion. Irony aside considering his history, that role is exclusive to the Supreme Court. Bush apparently blieves he can ignore miltary regulations, affirmative action provisions, and other safeguards and protections.
The way Bush has done this is "signing notes" he added to nearly every bill he signs instead of vetoing the bill. Presidents have done this for years but only in an occasional fashion, not with the habitually habit of Bush. It could turn out his little scribbles have no meaning other then historical, but that of course is the problem. Do they have meaning? If so how much? How does this impact the power of the president? How does it impact the inacting and enforcing of the law? Could it be used as a legal precident in other matters? There in lies the problems, all the unanswered questions that could confuse or void the intent of the law Bush signed. Basically another mess to add to the already heaping pile.
No comments:
Post a Comment