Crooked Politicians
August 18th, 2006As I write, the Internal Revenue Service is going after Barry Bonds, businessmen everywhere and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Richard Nixon was known for sending the IRS after political opponents, and it’s long been held by Republicans that Bill Clinton did the same. A part of me wonders if the Internal Revenue Service has ever been used by George Walker Bush to harass political opponents, but I wouldn’t doubt it. I’d rather face off with the CIA than the IRS, because the IRS always gets it man. You can outwit a Secret Agent, you can outsmart a man, but you can’t beat a calculator.
Recently I read Tip O’Neill’s autobiography, and the Speaker of the House had a story to share about Richard Nixon and campaign contributions. George Steinbrenner, who was known for giving money to Democrats, was harassed by Nixon’s men and the IRS into giving campaign contributions to the Republican Party. The story was, Steinbrenner’s businesses were all being looked at and pored over by the IRS, and he knew that eventually they’d find something. The Administration told him to give Nixon money, and he did. Since then, he’s been a Republican. It’s a bizarre story that could come out of Russia, and O’Neill said he’d heard rumblings of other businesses being threatened in the same manner. There is occasional talk of Nixon as a Great Man, as Good President, but that should always be talked about second to discussion about his tyranny, and make no mistake, Richard Nixon was a tyrant.
Now that I’ve gotten that historical anecdote out of the way, let’s talk about the big news of late. this, the ruling by a Judge against the NSA’s wiretapping.
Noting “there are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” a federal judge ruled Thursday that President Bush had exceeded his authority when he allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Judge Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit said the surveillance by the NSA violates the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
The Bush administration said the program is a vital tool in the fight against terrorism and said it would seek a reversal by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration “couldn’t disagree more with this ruling.” He said the program carefully targets communications of suspected terrorists and “has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives.” Taylor ordered an immediate halt to the program, but the government said it would ask for a stay of that order pending appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which monitors phone calls and e-mails between people in the U.S. and people in other countries when a link to terrorism is suspected. The ACLU says the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set up a secret court to grant warrants for such surveillance, gave the government enough tools to monitor suspected terrorists.
The government argued that the program is well within the president’s authority but said proving that would require revealing state secrets. The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule. Taylor agreed, writing in her 43-page opinion that “Plaintiffs need no additional facts” to establish their claims.
I agree with this ruling, of course, but I wish she’d left out the dig at George Bush’s father and family. As bad as he is, there’s no need for an arbitrator who is supposed to be impartial to say something that may seem impartial. Still, I know this ruling was made on the merits and is right on merit, and that is all you can ask for. To be right on merit.