Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Sat

20

Oct

2007

The Protect Who Act?
Saturday, 20 October 2007 18:41
by Jayne Lyn Stahl
Congress appears to be on the verge of reaching agreement on some aspects of the so-called Protect America Act, or the "spying bill," which grants immunity to telecommunication companies accused of turning over private customer records to the National Security Agency. (WaPo)

The legislation which aims to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act such that warrants are now optional with the vehicle will make an appearance before the Senate next week where it is expected to pass. And, this bill is as much about protecting America as the Iraq war is about bringing democracy to the Middle East. The only ones being protected here are those who continue to break the law under the guise of national security. From the presidential veto, it's obvious that this administration isn't interested in granting immunity from prosecution to parents who are unable to pay their children's medical bills.

What's more, when was the last time you've heard of a White House giving an order to any company, let alone a communications company, which has tens of millions of customers, not to testify in court under a state secrets law that has yet to be written. But, what the hell, if one can grant retroactive immunity, why not enforce a law that isn't on the books? Oh, and why not cook the books, too, while we're at it as the Downing Street Memo clearly proves.

If nothing else, the past six years proves that not only does crime pay, but it pays handsomely — for the upper one percentile of the population of this country, that is. There are more carcinogens trying to pose as laws, coming out of Congress, these days, than on any freeway in America.

Let your Senators, whose salaries you and I pay, hear now whether you're willing to have your personal phone calls, and e-mails, intercepted as those of tens of millions of Americans already have, and whether it's okay with you for those telecommunication behemoths like A T & T, and Verizon, to be granted immunity from prosecution for breaking the law that protects your privacy.

Look at it this way, would you grant immunity unless you thought that a crime was committed? The Constitution isn't the only casualty of the "war on terror;" common sense is, too.
More from this author:
Following in the Footsteps... (6304 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl The manic warriors, in Washington, are at it again, only now they've found someone who can manage more than one syllable at...
Worldwide Open Season on the Press (9305 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl On an otherwise quiet street in Istanbul, this morning, a 53 year old Turkish citizen of Armenian descent was gunned down...
On Hillary's announcement... (5430 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl You may have read the transcript of a speech given by George McGovern in The Nation last week in which he rightly...
An Open Letter to "The Decider" (5807 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl While the odds are probably better of getting a response from Santa, there are a few things I'd like to say if you can...
"Notes from the Undergrown: State of the Oilman Address" (5769 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl The president's speech last night was more important for what it didn't say than for what it did. In an address that could...
Related Articles:
Bush’s Tougher Sanctions Still Inadequate – U.S. Must Do More to Protect Darfur (5199 Hits)
UN Security Council Details Plan for AU-UN Hybrid Force; Africa Action Calls for Rapid Movement towards Immediate Deployment Tuesday, May 29,...
Obama Says He'll Use Force Unilaterally to Protect "Vital Interests" (3956 Hits)
by David Swanson There is much that I can agree with or tolerate in Barack Obama's new article in Foreign Affairs. On the occupation of...
World Report: Abusers Target Human Rights Messengers - Rights-Respecting Governments Should Speak Up to Protect Defenders (3110 Hits)
Press Release Governments responsible for serious human rights violations have over the past year intensified attacks against human rights...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (3)add comment

Now I understand said:

0
I don't like this law either
But I sure would not pick this auther to write about it! She in totally incapable of composing a relevant, articulate argument. After reviewing her bio, her background explains a lot "poet, playwright, screenwriter". Hmm, don't see anything about knowledge or expertise which would allow her to comment intelligently on a piece of complicated legislation.

Now if I can figure out why a publication is allowing her write on subjects she is totally unqualified to comment on......
 
October 27, 2007
Votes: +0

Confused said:

0
So why attack the author?
How about analyzing the content of the article as opposed to the author? This isn't Fox, people getting news off the internet usually have an IQ over a bowl of salad and can spot indirect attacks.
 
November 28, 2007
Votes: +0

jayne said:

0
now if I can figure out
why a moron who can't even spell, "auther," would insult this author or anyone else.... get a life, and don't leave home without it. Try putting yourself on the line before you attack someone else. Why don't you write an artical and be an auther liek huh -- dummy
 
November 28, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top