Student offers opinion on Patriot Act, who is to blame
Sean Boers
Issue date: 11/4/09 Section: Viewpoints
I read the two recent articles on Alberto Gonzalez's visit. I am quoted/referenced in both of them. So, a few points:
Firstly, when I stood up and asked Mr. Gonzalez my long-winded question, one of the things he responded with was this: "President Wilson and Roosevelt engaged in massive collections of electronic communications during the first and second world war. The collection performed by President Bush was much more narrow."
He is very correct, girls and boys. If the USA Patriot Act has the kid that stood outside the Elam Center in his Magic: The Gathering outfit so outraged, the extent of J. Edgar Hoover's wiretaps would probably lead him to dress up as Lord Voldemort over on North Humphreys Boulevard (the FBI's Memphis Field Office, which is the closest one that I know of).
The director placed wiretaps on everybody from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to John Dillinger during his 40 years with the FBI, and spied on the occasional communist or skinhead for good measure. FDR threw Japanese-Americans (as well as Italian and German-Americans) into camps.
Under Wilson, it was considered seditious speech to criticize the war effort. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus to detain Southern sympathizers. Under Adams, there was something called the Alien and Sedition Acts, which allowed for deportations based upon mere opinion alone. And yet you kids are up in arms because you can't buy ammonium nitrate without the FBI, ATF, DEA and a few other choice organizations knowing about it? Keep in mind that I'm not arguing for the USA Patriot Act per se (I happen to see it as a huge and unnecessary overreaching of federal authority), but rather pointing out a little food for thought.
Secondly, one thing that struck me as odd is that the Bush administration took all of the blame at the protest. I wonder how many of you stopped to think that, before Bush and friends took a single step, Congress voted to authorize it.
That's right, YOUR elected representatives voted the USA Patriot Act into law (and to renew it). YOUR elected representatives authorized President Bush to use force in Iraq. YOUR elected representatives gave Dubya permission to use "any necessary force" to fight terrorism.
So you tell me: why are the majority of them still in office? Is Bush and all that's associated with him a more convenient target than your own personal responsibility as voters? Is it because of Bush's party membership (remember: our current administration and Congress have yet to get rid of the act)? Is drinking Pinot Noir and wearing antiwar buttons just trendy these days? - I'm not defending the Patriot Act.
I do think that waterboarding and the humiliations at Abu Ghraib count as torture. Invading Iraq was unnecessary, not to mention wrong. Bush was not my favorite president. I don't watch FOX News. I'm just the one to put blame where blame is due, and what seems to be the case is that Congress shares quite a bit of the blame for what you guys were protesting that night.
But hey, why go against convention when we can continue with the status quo of blaming Bush for all our sins? Lies are simple. Simple is bliss.
Firstly, when I stood up and asked Mr. Gonzalez my long-winded question, one of the things he responded with was this: "President Wilson and Roosevelt engaged in massive collections of electronic communications during the first and second world war. The collection performed by President Bush was much more narrow."
He is very correct, girls and boys. If the USA Patriot Act has the kid that stood outside the Elam Center in his Magic: The Gathering outfit so outraged, the extent of J. Edgar Hoover's wiretaps would probably lead him to dress up as Lord Voldemort over on North Humphreys Boulevard (the FBI's Memphis Field Office, which is the closest one that I know of).
The director placed wiretaps on everybody from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to John Dillinger during his 40 years with the FBI, and spied on the occasional communist or skinhead for good measure. FDR threw Japanese-Americans (as well as Italian and German-Americans) into camps.
Under Wilson, it was considered seditious speech to criticize the war effort. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus to detain Southern sympathizers. Under Adams, there was something called the Alien and Sedition Acts, which allowed for deportations based upon mere opinion alone. And yet you kids are up in arms because you can't buy ammonium nitrate without the FBI, ATF, DEA and a few other choice organizations knowing about it? Keep in mind that I'm not arguing for the USA Patriot Act per se (I happen to see it as a huge and unnecessary overreaching of federal authority), but rather pointing out a little food for thought.
Secondly, one thing that struck me as odd is that the Bush administration took all of the blame at the protest. I wonder how many of you stopped to think that, before Bush and friends took a single step, Congress voted to authorize it.
That's right, YOUR elected representatives voted the USA Patriot Act into law (and to renew it). YOUR elected representatives authorized President Bush to use force in Iraq. YOUR elected representatives gave Dubya permission to use "any necessary force" to fight terrorism.
So you tell me: why are the majority of them still in office? Is Bush and all that's associated with him a more convenient target than your own personal responsibility as voters? Is it because of Bush's party membership (remember: our current administration and Congress have yet to get rid of the act)? Is drinking Pinot Noir and wearing antiwar buttons just trendy these days? - I'm not defending the Patriot Act.
I do think that waterboarding and the humiliations at Abu Ghraib count as torture. Invading Iraq was unnecessary, not to mention wrong. Bush was not my favorite president. I don't watch FOX News. I'm just the one to put blame where blame is due, and what seems to be the case is that Congress shares quite a bit of the blame for what you guys were protesting that night.
But hey, why go against convention when we can continue with the status quo of blaming Bush for all our sins? Lies are simple. Simple is bliss.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
shocked
posted 11/05/09 @ 8:57 AM CST
Wow finally someone that realizes QQing about other people doesn't accomplish anything other than creating a scapegoat for your own screw-ups.
joneser
posted 11/09/09 @ 6:26 PM CST
Finally someone realizes we did not have a dictator. Congress and the American people hold just as much blame for Abu Ghraib as president Bush. Just because something unfortunate happened under his administration does not mean he is 100% responsible. (Continued…)
sboers
posted 11/10/09 @ 10:55 PM CST
@joneser:
Dictator. I like that word. Off the top of my head, how did a guy too dumb to eat a pretzel somehow become smart enough to rig two nstional elections? Despite my graduation present (discovery of an inverted I-tooth+braces+oral surgery), I can eat a pretzel without going comatose, and yet I don't have the first clue about rigging elections. (Continued…)
Post a Comment