Express Yourself!

<p><font face="Times New Roman" color="#ffffff" size="3">Elizabeth Holtzman makes a compelling case for George W. Bush’s impeachment due to his refusal to be limit his activities to what is legal under US law in </font><a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0066ff" size="3">the January 30^th edition of The Nation</font></a><font face="Times New Roman" color="#ffffff" size="3"><font color="#0066cc">.</font><span>  </span>She identifies his warrantless domestic spying as the primary reason for impeachment, but also acknowledges </font><a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050718/holtzman"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0066ff" size="3">allegations of torture</font></a><font face="Times New Roman" color="#ffffff" size="3"> as possible grounds. <span>  </span>I personally thought that George merited impeachment because he unilaterally declared war on Iraq after Iraq submitted to weapons inspections which accurately turned up no such weapons.<span>  </span>After a series of former-insider books, starting with former Treasury Secretary,</font><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_O'Neill"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0066ff" size="3"> Paul O’Neill</font></a><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><font color="#ffffff">, and former <span lang="EN">counter-terrorism adviser to the Bush White House,</span><span lang="EN"> </span></font></font></font><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0066ff" size="3">Richard Clarke</font></a><font face="Times New Roman" color="#ffffff" size="3">, all saying that Bush was trying to contrive a rationale to attack Iraq since early in his administration.<span>  </span>But I digress.<span>  </span>Ultimately, I am pleased that the topic has some momentum.<span>  </span>Let’s look at Holtzman’s case.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" color="#ffffff" size="3">As a result of </font><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0066ff" size="3">Richard Nixon</font></a><font face="Times New Roman" color="#ffffff" size="3"><font color="#0066ff">’</font>s warrantless wiretaps of seventeen journalists, Congress enacted FISA, the </font><a href="http://www.cnss.org/fisa"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0066ff" size="3">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act</font></a><font face="Times New Roman" color="#ffffff" size="3"><font color="#0066ff">,</font> which requires judicial oversight of all domestic wiretaps. <span> </span>At the time Nixon claimed <span> </span>In the Nation article Holtzman debunks all of the Administration’s claims for legitimate grounds for by-passing the FISA court during their spying.<span>  </span>For example, the Bush administration claims that acquiring a warrant would make wiretaps less timely, when, in fact, warrants by be acquired up to three days after the fact.<span>  </span>All we seek is a balance between legitimate needs to investigate criminal activity and the privacy of US citizens.<span>  </span>Without this protection, we are in danger of becoming a totalitarian regime, because citizens who disagree with administration </font></p>

<p>Congratulations <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google">Google </a>CEO Eric Schmidt and tech President, Sergy Brin for <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1523227">refusing to give in to Alberto Gonzalez' request for records of Internet searches conducted</a> through Google.  Unfortunately other search engines (Yahoo and MSN, for example) were not as concerned for our privacy. I have always liked that Google has a clear, publicly annunciated principle of business ethics, &quot;do no evil&quot;.  Which seems like nothing special on its surface, but Google lives up to this principle.  For example, they do not divulge private information to the Government, like what items we search for on the Internet.  Let's say you are doing a report on porn for a women's studies class. Would you want to show up on a list of potential sexual predators?  Should we have to worry about what each search might look like to someone unaware of our motivations?  How intellectually stifling!  Gee, the George W. Bush Administration and intellectual stifling, hmmmmm. </p><p>The reason given for the data request by Gonzalez is to show that Internet filters are not adequately protecting minors from porn sites.  At the same time Gonzalez claims that the data cannot be traced to individuals.  This makes no sense.  How can you use this data to show that minors are accessing porn, if specific individuals cannot be identified?  Makes me wonder what this data will really be used for!  Thanks Goolge!</p><p />