Re: [Clips] A small editorial about recent events. (fwd)

[Dude VanWinkle <dudevanwinkle () gmail com>]

On 12/18/05, J.A. Terranson Forwarded Perry Metzger's Comments:
>   The President claims he has the prerogative to order such
>   surveillance. The law unambiguously disagrees with him.
from: 
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-12-19T005210Z_01_MOL748915_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-NSA.xml

"Rice reiterated Bush's statement that the wiretapping of telephone
conversations and other communications was legal and did not violate
the U.S. Constitution."

They dont even bother responding with facts to the contrary anymore. A
simple denial in conjunction with invoking the name of 9/11 and the
word terrorist seems to do the job. Even the people opposing these
measures are only recommending a Senate oversight hearing.

So what can we do when the president breaks the law and the courts do
nothing to punish him?

If all three branches of government are under the control of a single
man/party, I think this means our system has failed. I hope I am
wrong, but from recent events seem to support this feeling.
(appointing how many supreme court justices?, the last three
elections, etc)


Normally the correct response to this question is: go and vote, but
with recent (and not so recent) events in the news:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2Bdiebold+%2Bgeorgia+%2Bcalifornia&btnG=Google+Search

It seems this option is lost to us as well

Ideas? Maybe we could Hack the next "Election" err... counter-hack that is ;-)


-JP
"You sir, are a moron"
Forest Gump, talking to JP
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/