Constitutional Concerns Vs. Ellen DeGeneres Doggie Problems

Today is Wednesday, October 17th. I have just sat down in my in-law's living room, only to catch a glimpse of Ellen DeGeneres crying over the situation with her adopted dog. The rant I have been internalizing boils over.

This is despicable. The United States government has been permitted to install NSA supercomputers inside of several AT&T facilities (as well as other major telecommunication companies), for the purpose of siphoning off all phone and internet communication passing through that company's lines-in other words, all of the communications of its customers.

And the major media outlets see Ellen DeGeneres' pet-adoption ordeal as being more newsworthy? I realize the wiretapping has been mentioned-but it should be mentioned without end until something fundamentally changes. The media should ram these abuses (and others like it) down the viewer's throat until it changes!

Do people not realize that even John Ashcroft-the former attorney general who took heat and was assailed over the supposedly draconian USA PATRIOT Act-refused to acknowledge the legality of the administration's wiretapping policies? Several within the Department of Justice resigned over this issue, including the Deputy Attorney General James Comey. Something is amiss. Americans still do not know the full scope of what led those officials to protest the policies.

Are Americans not aware that, even though these policies are only part of the "war-time" powers afforded to the government, that the "war" in which we are fighting does not have a definite end? Terrorists will always abound! We will never completely root out those radicals in the world who are willing to die and kill others for a cause! Therefore, since the War on Terror will never end, neither will the executive branch's expansive war-time powers. It is strange, however, that while the President's lawyers claim these powers are necessary for the duration of the war, the President seeks for them to be made permanent.

You may argue that this domestic wiretapping does not matter. After all, you boast, "I would never engage in activities that would interest the government. These policies are not pertinent to my individual life." That's perfectly fine-trampling the constitutional right to privacy because of your perceived immunity is your prerogative. But let me ask you this. Do you think that we could ever have a President who would attempt to use such unsupervised technology to eavesdrop on other political party's, in hopes of getting an edge in an election? It's happened before. His name was Nixon. Imagine if he had possessed unfettered access to the bulk of U.S. telecommunications. Nobody would have been caught burglarizing an office. That's just one situation, aside from the obvious, in which such powers could be abused, if they are not already.

Just know this. An apparatus is in place which gives the U. S. government direct access (without requiring the use of specific warrants or responsible oversight) to your personal communication. President Bush has also sought to give all participating telecommunication companies immunity, should lawsuits be filed in the future (something the obviously expected).

In a prison, all prisoners' mail is opened before being delivered. Similarly, our government now operates on the presumption that all Americans deserve to have their correspondence intercepted.

The Founder's of this country saw the end-result of a government that can easily override its laws, bypassing checks and balances, and making them up as they go along. That's why they designed the Constitution a certain way, to attempt to safeguard against such abuses. You can take what the Bush Administration is still doing and get mad, telling a congressman or simply spreading the word to others. Or, you can get back to fact-checking more important issues in our country, like Ellen DeGeneres' pet-adoption mishaps.