I think we've got some semantics issues on this.
If I'm not mistaken, the timeline was that dubya first went the illegal route. Then the patriot act was delivered to, among other things, help indemnify all those complicit with this illegal, warrantless spying (and dubya). After patriot act was adopted, the President could do pretty much any spying he wanted. So long as the President can blurt out "terrorist!," he can justify literally (?) almost any action of any kind. If you can classify enough information to make it virtually impossible for anyone to see if the President was adhering to the patriot act's meek oversight stipulations, any President can act as a good old-fashioned dictator.
Still, the President may be technically doing things that are legal to the letter of the law, which is where my semantics break is with your comment. To me, hiding behind an hideous set of tools, legal or not, like the patriot act doesn't really make the actions of the President any less immoral or unethical in my view. The patriot act is a disgrace.
If the President followed FISA laws to the letter in here, then I would walk back my disdain for the President. But I'm pretty certain this isn't the case.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment