Today's Article
Barack Obama
(D-IL), voted 'Yea' to
furthering the Bush
dictatorship; John
McCain (R-AZ)
lacked the guts to
vote on the matter.
(D-IL), voted 'Yea' to
furthering the Bush
dictatorship; John
McCain (R-AZ)
lacked the guts to
vote on the matter.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Gutless Senate Caved In To 'King George' on Spying Bill
By Cliff Montgomery - July 10th, 2008
Once again giving in to King George, a gutless Senate approved legislation Wednesday designed to further
Bush's spying powers through a more complete destruction of the Fourth Amendment--even including a
shameful shielding of telecommunications corporations from lawsuits which otherwise would hold them
accountable as accomplices to a would-be tyrant.
The vote to destroy freedom was a rout. Only 28 members had the integrity to vote for the people rather than
the dictator. A full 69 senators--almost 7 out of 10--sided with our new Master. Three members abstained from
voting.
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), voted "Yea" to furthering the Bush dictatorship; Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
apparently was one of the three who lacked the guts to vote on the matter.
An equally servile House earlier stained its own halls with dishonor, passing the bill and thrusting its own
dagger into the heart of American liberty last month.
A gleeful Bush immediately proclaimed that he will sign the bill as soon as he can.
Here was the central issue: Should lawmakers create a legal immunity for telecommunications companies that
have aided and abetted the Great King in spying on U.S. phone and Internet lines without the permission of
any U.S. court, even the secret American court put in place by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?
Forever on the wrong side of history, George W. Bush proclaimed he would veto the legislation unless it
created an immunity from privacy lawsuits for such companies as Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc.
Not content with damaging the name of the Senate, numerous senators even shot down proposals that would
have delayed, watered down or eliminated the immunity stipulation.
A few champions of liberty on both the Left and the Right were strong enough to declare the bill for what it
really is: A destruction of every American's right to be secure from unreasonable government intrusions.
Of course, Bush instead claimed the bill protects Americans' 'security' by destroying their liberty.
"This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and
what they're planning," he bellowed during a rare White House meeting with reporters after the Senate
misjudgment.
As usual, Bush justifies his tyrannical actions by logical fallacy. He first employs:
1.) The Either/Or Fallacy, falsely declaring to Americans that we may either have freedom or 'security', but we
may not have both;
2.) then he employs a typical example of Circular Logic, claiming that anyone can see that his all-powerful
government will only spy on already-known terrorists...because his all-powerful government will only spy on
already-known terrorists.
First, the Either/Or fallacy. Bush's unfounded claim that to have security we must destroy freedom is simply
asinine, and is a direct insult to every American's intelligence.
Perhaps Ben Franklin provided the best retort to such thinking: "Those who would give up essential liberty to
purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Why? Because as previous articles in The Spark have made clear, freedom is itself the most certain security a
people may have. The rejection of such Natural Rights as the right to privacy and the right to hold our
representatives accountable is the surest means of destroying both our liberty and our security.
No people have ever been made secure by seeing those rights trampled. No free people ever became more
secure by becoming slaves, and no representative ever became a better, more sure protector by becoming a
tyrant who rules by private whim and fiat.
The very notion is anti-democratic, as it presumes that the people cannot take care of themselves, and are
forever in need of an all-powerful protector. A Big Brother.
And of course, it's equally obvious that a representative cannot simply proclaim he is always spying on the right
people, jailing and prosecuting the right individuals, without proving those claims true. Claims are not facts,
pure and simple.
Suppose a bank representative phoned you, scaring you with talk of how shadowy individuals often steal the
identity of innocent citizens like you, and proposed a 'bold plan': He insists that for your protection, you must
give him complete, unchecked power over your bank account and all your financial affairs.
"During these troubled times," he declares, "won't it make your finances safer to let me--a professional--make
numerous, unchecked financial decisions in your name, as you forever give up any right to hold me
accountable for any action I perform? Won't that finally make your bank account secure?"
When it's our bank account, we can easily perceive the fallacy of the Circular Argument, and would refuse to
buy into it. So why is it we can't see it when the matter is our very lives?
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - July 10th, 2008
Once again giving in to King George, a gutless Senate approved legislation Wednesday designed to further
Bush's spying powers through a more complete destruction of the Fourth Amendment--even including a
shameful shielding of telecommunications corporations from lawsuits which otherwise would hold them
accountable as accomplices to a would-be tyrant.
The vote to destroy freedom was a rout. Only 28 members had the integrity to vote for the people rather than
the dictator. A full 69 senators--almost 7 out of 10--sided with our new Master. Three members abstained from
voting.
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), voted "Yea" to furthering the Bush dictatorship; Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
apparently was one of the three who lacked the guts to vote on the matter.
An equally servile House earlier stained its own halls with dishonor, passing the bill and thrusting its own
dagger into the heart of American liberty last month.
A gleeful Bush immediately proclaimed that he will sign the bill as soon as he can.
Here was the central issue: Should lawmakers create a legal immunity for telecommunications companies that
have aided and abetted the Great King in spying on U.S. phone and Internet lines without the permission of
any U.S. court, even the secret American court put in place by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?
Forever on the wrong side of history, George W. Bush proclaimed he would veto the legislation unless it
created an immunity from privacy lawsuits for such companies as Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc.
Not content with damaging the name of the Senate, numerous senators even shot down proposals that would
have delayed, watered down or eliminated the immunity stipulation.
A few champions of liberty on both the Left and the Right were strong enough to declare the bill for what it
really is: A destruction of every American's right to be secure from unreasonable government intrusions.
Of course, Bush instead claimed the bill protects Americans' 'security' by destroying their liberty.
"This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and
what they're planning," he bellowed during a rare White House meeting with reporters after the Senate
misjudgment.
As usual, Bush justifies his tyrannical actions by logical fallacy. He first employs:
1.) The Either/Or Fallacy, falsely declaring to Americans that we may either have freedom or 'security', but we
may not have both;
2.) then he employs a typical example of Circular Logic, claiming that anyone can see that his all-powerful
government will only spy on already-known terrorists...because his all-powerful government will only spy on
already-known terrorists.
First, the Either/Or fallacy. Bush's unfounded claim that to have security we must destroy freedom is simply
asinine, and is a direct insult to every American's intelligence.
Perhaps Ben Franklin provided the best retort to such thinking: "Those who would give up essential liberty to
purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Why? Because as previous articles in The Spark have made clear, freedom is itself the most certain security a
people may have. The rejection of such Natural Rights as the right to privacy and the right to hold our
representatives accountable is the surest means of destroying both our liberty and our security.
No people have ever been made secure by seeing those rights trampled. No free people ever became more
secure by becoming slaves, and no representative ever became a better, more sure protector by becoming a
tyrant who rules by private whim and fiat.
The very notion is anti-democratic, as it presumes that the people cannot take care of themselves, and are
forever in need of an all-powerful protector. A Big Brother.
And of course, it's equally obvious that a representative cannot simply proclaim he is always spying on the right
people, jailing and prosecuting the right individuals, without proving those claims true. Claims are not facts,
pure and simple.
Suppose a bank representative phoned you, scaring you with talk of how shadowy individuals often steal the
identity of innocent citizens like you, and proposed a 'bold plan': He insists that for your protection, you must
give him complete, unchecked power over your bank account and all your financial affairs.
"During these troubled times," he declares, "won't it make your finances safer to let me--a professional--make
numerous, unchecked financial decisions in your name, as you forever give up any right to hold me
accountable for any action I perform? Won't that finally make your bank account secure?"
When it's our bank account, we can easily perceive the fallacy of the Circular Argument, and would refuse to
buy into it. So why is it we can't see it when the matter is our very lives?
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!