This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
White House vs the People
Published on July 4, 2006 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events
In the June 23 rd edition of New York Times was revealed an on going program of the US government: the monitoring of millions of dollars of banking transactions. The program was carried out withoput court approval as was the case with the telephone tapping. Bush was livid and thundered :"The disclosure of the programme is disgraceful". The argument he made was that US was or is at war and therefore such measures are not onlt necessatry but also required to protect the American People from the undisclosed threat of "International Terrorism". By linking the disclosure of an illegal program with the on going crisis that the Bush Administration finds itself in, the argument is being made that extraordinary times require extradordinary measures. If the onfoing survellielence of banking tranactions is so vital to the safety of the American Public, the question arises why was a court warrant not taken. Afterall the Washington DC Ciortuit Court has always obliged the government. Therfore the law was broken and no public interset was served by this measure. 4 years of intense scrutiny has not resulted even in a single procecution and there lies the real secret of this measure.

Did the disclosure of this program by the NYT tilt the balance between the public's right to know and the right to live as Tony Snow the Propaganda Chief of the White House seems to imply. Even the embedded journalists of the White House Corps seem to be horrified at this interpretation. As if acting on cue a number of Republicans Congressmen such as Pat Roberts, Peter King, and Senator Jim Bunning took up the cause: Giving aid and comfort to the enemy said one congressmen against the NYT editor.Another declared, "an act of treason". Conservative bloggers are having a field day amplifying these remarks.And to make matters worse some have even seen the hand of Karl Rove in the strategy behind this counter campaign.

The USA has a constitution according to which the 3 parts of the Government are supposed to be separate but equal. THe COngress has under the Republican majority(likely to cvhange this November) has by and large gone along with the Bush interpretation of law and constitutional conventions. Under the garb of National Security Congress has been abdicasting its oversight role over the Bush Administration. Since the details of the banking tranactions were collected from Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecomminication (SWIFT) congrssional approvasl or the approvasl of a v=ccourt was abolutely essential to provide a fig leaf of legality to an intrusive invasion of private banking records. We may recall that when the Valerie Palme's name was outed by the White House as a CIA agent the same agrument of national security was trotted out to justify a wanton breach of secrecy. What that incident displayed then and what is on display now is a total diregard for the Liberties of the Citizens, a sad thought on July 4, the Independence Day.

The print and electronic media are the only checks available to hem in an increasingly "rampaging Rambo" Administration. The US media is particularly interested in getting back its reputation as a free and bold Press by ruthlessly exposing the doings of the Bush Administration. We must point out that NYT burnt its fingrs badly when it published reporrts that gave credibility to the Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. Having been outwiteed by the Gvernment, the Press will soldier on in defence of Civil Liberty.

Comments
on Jul 04, 2006
The answer to your headline question is "Yes" - enough said.
on Jul 04, 2006
Yes, it was a breach and deplorable to tip off the terrorists in this way.
on Jul 04, 2006
I pray you are as kind and understanding of terrorist when they finally get around to killing many of your country men and women.
on Jul 04, 2006
Okay, my statement will probably not be looked upon as correct here, but I think Bush was wrong for implementing it without court approval. He is an elected official. This is a fact he seems to continously forget. Bush has his own agenda and he is using the "war on terrorism" as a shield for it.

September 11th was a grave and tragic event, I would never attempt to dispute this, but since then what attacks have there been? Rumors and propaganda of other attacks that "may occur" have surfaced, but where is the evidence of these?

No, my stand is that yes, we are fighting a war on terrorism. And the terrorist's name is Bush.

I am sorry if this offends anyone, it is my own views and not posted as a flame on anyone's personal views.
on Jul 04, 2006
#4 by Incoherent
Tue, July 04, 2006 11:04 AM


Okay, my statement will probably not be looked upon as correct here, but I think Bush was wrong for implementing it without court approval. He is an elected official. This is a fact he seems to continuously forget. Bush has his own agenda and he is using the "war on terrorism" as a shield for it.


Do you know about presidential powers in time of war? He does not need court approval for this particular program, it is an over seas company and does not fall under U.S. jurisdiction.

What would you have done if attacked like America was?

I do not mind opposing views but I would like to see a solution from you.

My problem with the left side of the aisle is all i see is I would not have done it like the Bushman did, with not a single solution offered.
on Jul 04, 2006

Okay, my statement will probably not be looked upon as correct here, but I think Bush was wrong for implementing it without court approval. He is an elected official.

He HAD court approval! Keep up with the news please.

on Jul 04, 2006

Tony Snow the Propaganda Chief of the White House

And for the record Bahu, that destroyed what might have been a great article.

on Jul 05, 2006
It is forgotten that President Bush has to operate within the standards set by the US Constitution and law. He has already faced a slight set back in the Hamdan vs Rumsfeldt judgement. What prevented him from getting a court order and proceed, and Courts are known to be sympathetic to this argument. My point is that Bush is changing what some historians called an "Imperial Presidency", into a hard natioanl security presidency which will erode the civil liberties of the people.
on Jul 05, 2006


pray you are as kind and understanding of terrorist when they finally get around to killing many of your country men and women


Again you are looking at this as a US vs THEM issue. What we are saying is that even in the event of carrying out an intrusive invasion of financial privacy, the Adminisdtration has to seek a Court order. Search and seizure cannot be carried out in the name of fighting Terrorism disregarding Law. The definition of search and seizure can extend to personal records that treflect personal transactions. Tell me, if the US Admionistration starts monitoring you credit card purchases, your mobile phone recpords, your e mails, and tracks your life using the social security number and follow all this by intrusive invasion of privacy you will certainly realise that Tomorrow is Already Here.
on Jul 05, 2006
I see a lot of accusations here against Bush, but I haven't seen any evidence that he has broke the law. Typical when the Bush haters come around.
on Jul 06, 2006
Bush haters


This is not the right way to look at the issue. It is important not to view important political decisions and policies purely in terms of personalities alone. Civil Liberties enshrined in the Constitution have been set aside in the name of fighting terrrim. This will ultimately lead to a situation in which people will find their freedoms undersmined.
on Jul 06, 2006
Nobody has lost their "civil liberties" in this country. This is the same old tired arguement the left has been using since Sept. 11.
on Jul 06, 2006
Your article amounts quite simply to a very transparently biased rant, Bahu. It reeks of prejudice & condescension. Bleh.