What Happened To The Rule Of Law?

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human rights. It is the motto of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-- William Pitt

Since there's no way that the dominant news media will report all the facts concerning the President's authorizing wiretaps of suspected terrorists, we can only go on what's been reported so far.

The key question here is whether or not the President had statutory authority to do so. And opinions seem to vary on that point. Neal Boortz seems to think that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillancce Act of 1978 gives that authority. But does it? And should it? And has the President complied with the provisions of that Act by obtaining the required warrants within the required 72-hour period? So far, we've not seen evidence that he has.

Bearing in mind that the Constitution exists to put limits on government power, we'd have to side with Vox Day in taking an extremely jaundiced view of the whole situation.

Individuals are properly presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a preponderance of the evidence, but government does not enjoy that protection.

Never trust a government that doesn't trust you.


At 2:44 PM, December 22, 2005, Blogger El Borak said...

Never trust a government, period.

At 3:43 PM, December 22, 2005, Blogger Galt-In-Da-Box said...

Even during Reagan's terms I kept hearing "People don't exist to serve government, government exists to serve the people." which sounds very good, until you realize government serves no interests but its own, and the only thing worse than big government is the citizen that constantly screams for more of it!

At 3:29 AM, December 23, 2005, Blogger Master Doh-San said...

Reagan was also the one who said: "Government isn't the solution; government is the problem".

So true.


Post a Comment

<< Home