Quote:
|
his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further
|
The student had a lot more going for him than borrowing a library book, even if it's Mao's "Little Red Book" - guaranteed.
The NSA has been conducting limited clandestine surveillance on Americans for many more years than Bush has been President. Given certain conditions of National Security, (even without the Patriot Act) such surveillance is lawful without warrant.
Quote:
|
President George W. Bush launched a secret domestic surveillance program in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The president personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official told the Associated Press on Friday.
|
In the absence of specific information on the circumstances in each case, it is not possible
for anyone to fairly evaluate these actions by the President. If the President acted in the interests of National Security, his actions were probably lawful and appropriate. If he did not act in the interests of National Security, he's got some tough explaining to do. Note that the surveillance of subjects was limited to "phone calls and e-mail messages from the United States to foreign destinations".
So, approximately 36 incidents in a little over four years? The RIAA subpoena factory has Bush beat by a landslide victory in the abuse department. Obviously, the President is being questioned on these actions and is therefore being held accountable for them.
I'm not advocating limitless unquestioned power to spy on people, or power to conduct search and seizure without probable cause. I want the U.S. government to take action in protecting it's citizens against acts of terrorism. However, there must always be accountability. There is a marked difference between using authority responsibly and abuse of authority.