Thursday, August 16, 2007

What Fourth Amendment?

Alice in Wankerland? Oh yes:

[9th Circuit Appeals Court Judge] M. Margaret McKeown repeatedly referred to a public statement by President Bush that the government does no domestic wiretapping without first obtaining a warrant, and asked whether administration officials would provide that assurance under oath. Judge Michael Daly Hawkins also requested the assurance, arguing that "no court in the land" would accept a public statement as binding.

"If there were in fact widespread surveillance of American citizens, there would be no [legal] remedy, yes or no?" McKeown asked [Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G.] Garre. He responded by reiterating that litigation would inevitably lead to exposing methods that must be kept secret to be effective.

The Affidavit idea was NOT agreed to by the Bush Appointee...


Garre was forced to mount a public argument that almost nothing about the substance of the government's conduct could be talked about in court because doing so might expose either the methods used in gathering intelligence or gaps in those methods.

"This seems to put us in the 'trust us' category," Judge M. Margaret McKeown said about the government's assertions that its surveillance activities did not violate the law. " 'We don't do it. Trust us. And don't ask us about it.' "

So IF the Bush Administration is listening in on your DOMESTIC CALLS -- to say, "Kucinich 2008", so as to confirm you are one of those nasty 'Murica hatin' dirty fuckin' hippies they'd be violating the law. But, sadly for you, the law wouldn't apply, only the word of the Dictator the President.

You will never find out -- because it is a secret -- and your rights are nothing compared to protecting the country that guarantees those rights, which are what makes that country worth protecting -- even though they are rights that you actually do not have anymore in the country being protected.

OKAY, now that Al Qaeda has forced us to give up those things that makes us Americans, can we just declare them the "WINNER" and then start all over again, with our y'know, Constitutional Rights, and then fight 'em 2 out of 3?

No comments: