Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
31 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

If Bush Is Leaving Office In Less Than A Year, Why Are They Still Intent On Destroying Our Privacy?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


Become a Fan
  (9 fans)

opednews.com

For all practical purposes, President Bush is now a lame-duck President. If that’s the case, then why is his administration working so hard to take away even more of America’s constitutional rights and his departmental heads are ramping-up their efforts to increase the spying on Americans? The common logic is that when Bush leaves office, some semblance of sanity will return to the United States and we will continue conducting whatever “war on terror” that needs to be undertaken without violating the constitutional rights of innocent Americans. We are all hoping the 2008 elections will bring back the rule of law to Washington, and these illegal and unconstitutional programs will be dismantled. That’s what we are hoping…

But, the signals coming out of Washington speak of a different story - one that is too horrific to imagine! Based on the rush to dismantle almost off of America’s rights to privacy - and these actions and initiatives are being carried out at a dizzying speeds, it would appear that Bush has no plans of leaving office or this Presidency fully expects the next President to follow in his footsteps of tyranny and oppression. The stage is being set for these violations of our civil rights to escalate and careen out of control until eventually - perhaps within months, nothing Americans use their personal computers for will remain private. No, I’m not being melodramatic.

I’ve warned people myself that S 1959, The “Thought Crime Prevention Bill” is being partially implemented even though its still in committee and hasn’t been passed into law yet. Yesterday, a brilliant essay was a written on exactly what privacy the government is attempting to negate by Elliot Cohen, and he describes why this is happening within America. People must be noticing that none of the Presidential candidates are speaking in depth in regard the way that Americans are losing some of their most basic constitutional rights, and none are pledging to stop the constant fear-mongering that our government is using to push its policies through, nor are they pledging to stop those policies that infringe on our constitutional rights. The following Op-Ed is powerful and covers many of the issues that seem to be intertwined with S 1959:

The End of Privacy

Posted on Jan 24, 2008 (Excerpts)

By Elliot Cohen

Amid the controversy brewing in the Senate over Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reform, the Bush administration appears to have changed its strategy and is devising a bold new plan that would strip away FISA protections in favor of a system of wholesale government monitoring of every American’s Internet activities. Now the national director of intelligence is predicting a disastrous cyber-terrorist attack on the U.S. if this scheme isn’t instituted.

It is no secret that the Bush administration has already been spying on the e-mail, voice-over-IP, and other Internet exchanges between American citizens since as early as and possibly earlier than Sept. 11, 2001. The National Security Agency has set up shop in the hubs of major telecom corporations, notably AT&T, installing equipment that makes copies of the contents of all Internet traffic, routing it to a government database and then using natural language parsing technology to sift through and analyze the data using undisclosed search criteria. It has done this without judicial oversight and obviously without the consent of the millions of Americans under surveillance. Given any rational interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, its mass spying operation is illegal and unconstitutional.

But now the administration wants to make these illegal activities legal. And why is that? According to National Director of Intelligence Mike McConnell, who is now drafting the proposal, an attack on a single U.S. bank by the 9/11 terrorists would have had a far more serious impact on the U.S. economy than the destruction of the Twin Towers. “My prediction is that we’re going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens,” said McConnell. So the way to prevent this from happening, he claims, is to give the government the power to spy at will on the content of all e-mails, file transfers and Web searches.

McConnell’s prediction of something “horrendous” happening unless we grant government this authority has a tone similar to that of the fear-mongering call to arms against terrorism that President Bush sounded before taking us to war in Iraq. Now, Americans are about to be asked to surrender their Fourth Amendment rights because of a vague and unsupported prediction of the dangers and costs of cyber-terrorism.

The analogy with the campaign to frighten us into war with Iraq gets even stronger when it becomes evident that along with the establishing of American forces in Iraq, the cyber-security McConnell is calling for was, all along, part of the strategic plan, devised by Dick Cheney and several other present and former high-level Bush administration officials, to establish America as the world’s supreme superpower. This plan, known as the Project for the New American Century, unequivocally recognized “an imperative” for government to not only secure the Internet against cyber-attacks but also to control and use it offensively against its adversaries. The Project for the New American Century also maintained that “the process of transformation” it envisioned (which included the militarization and control of the Internet) was “likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” All that appears to be lacking to make the analogy complete is the “horrendous” cyber-attack—the chilling analog of the 9/11 attacks—that McConnell now predicts.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the resolve of the Bush administration. But it would be a bigger mistake for Americans not to stand united against this familiar pattern of government scare tactics and manipulation. There are grave dangers to the survival of democracy posed by allowing any present or future government unfettered access to all of our private electronic communications. These dangers must be carefully weighed against the dubious and unproven benefits that granting such an awesome power to government might have on fending off cyber-attacks. (Emphasis added.)

Elliot D. Cohen, PhD, is a media ethicist and critic. His most recent book is “The Last Days of Democracy: How Big Media and Power-Hungry Government Are Turning America Into a Dictatorship.” He is a first-prize winner of the 2007 Project Censored Award.
LINK

Only selected excerpts are published and this is an Op-Ed worth reading.

Using a rationale that can only be described as bizarre, the government’s position is that if we don’t allow them (NSA, CIA, etc.) unfettered access to our private computer activities, documents, searches, and downloads, it opens-up the United States and make us vulnerable to being hacked in a “terror attack” on a massive scale.

So the way to prevent this from happening, he claims Mike McConnell, is to give the government the power to spy at will on the content of all e-mails, file transfers and Web searches.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://thepoliticalbandit.com/

I am nothing more than a patriotic American that is doing whatever I can to further the cause of democracy, the rule of law, and am extremely concerned in regard the slow creep of "soft fascism" that has been destroying America's middle-class. I (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
31 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

It's Quite SImple by Dennis Kaiser on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 9:07:52 AM
Let's try to be a bit fair by JR on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 9:38:31 AM
Be a "Little Bit Fair?" by William Cormier on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:12:22 AM
And to maintain the fairness... by John Sanchez Jr. on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 2:26:43 PM
True, and to maintain the fairness even further.. by JR on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:28:19 AM
To be fair... by Len Hart on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 5:06:48 PM
And for any who may have doubts.... by richard on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 7:00:01 PM
The new police state by wraft on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:16:57 AM
Keith Olberman won't save us ... by Mr M on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:31:20 AM
Olberman by richard on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 7:04:35 PM
It's a little too early to say if Bush is leaving. by Harold Smith on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:28:24 AM
Re: If Bush Is Leaving Office In Less Than A Year by Munich on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM
IF BUSH IS LEAVING by RICHARD SHADE on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 4:51:18 AM
This is the graphic that went with the article by William Cormier on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:54:50 PM
It seems the ccountry is divided into three camps; by Jim Freeman on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 2:48:44 PM
FISA Action in Senate Today by William Cormier on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 3:15:05 PM
Reply by tjb on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 5:51:54 PM
The answer is simple..... by Michael Morris on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 4:14:38 PM
THE ANSWER IS SIMLPE by RICHARD SHADE on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 5:03:13 AM
Laughter is good for the soul by Scott on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 9:10:10 PM
Who's claiming that "there will be no election"? by Harold Smith on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:24:42 PM
You strike me as someone who is truly asleep by wraft on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 9:14:02 AM
To be a bit fair, please read the legislation and statistics by Kathryn Smith on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:48:40 AM
I have a question for you by JR on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 9:48:29 AM
JR by Barbara Peterson on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:47:56 AM
Thanks... by JR on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 7:34:31 AM
Re: S1959 by Sam Adams on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 6:16:08 AM
WAKE UP by arlen custer on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 4:05:52 PM
Why does dubya dump on our rights ? by john riggs on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 6:57:25 PM
Well Said John by Kris Malmquist on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 5:42:32 AM
Why? To Destroy Evidence, That's Why by Kris Malmquist on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 5:38:51 AM