Vicious Rants of an Angry Yellow Man

Having just finished watching the fourth season of the show "24", I thought about President Bush's problems with tortures and spying on American citizens without warrants. Watching shows like "24" gives the impression that torturing and eavesdropping on suspects' conversations are absolutely necessary. If someone is trying to hit the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, we must do everything possible to prevent it. This is the argument the Bush administration has been giving.

Of course, in real life torturing do not usually bring about critical information. Most of the time even if the right person is in custody, he will not say the truth. He may say something that you want to hear and it may cause a wrong turn in the investigation. However, I am not so naive to say that torturing is never necessary. I am sure it has been going on in all countries, including the U.S. I have not seen anyone convicted for torturing in an attempt to get critical information. The convictions as the result of the disgrace treatment of prisoners in Iraq had nothing to do with security. I think Senator McCain's torture law is right. It may stop people from acting irresponsibly. If you believe that a situation where torturing is absolutely necessary, like in "24", then you should also believe the government would cover it up so that the person who did prevent a castastrophe would not be prosecuted. Bush should have accepted the torure law because in reality it would not have stopped torturing totally but would make commenders think about it carefully before ordering it.

By writing an executive order allowing spying on Americans without a warrant was something Bush did not have to do. In the past the court has given the government authority retroactively for listening conversation without getting a warrant before hand. (We are talking about national security situations, not routine criminal investiagations.) Courts understand that in national security situations, the government must be given some leeway. The government, however, should have to explain later why they had to listen to a conversation. I don't have any problem with that if a court is given the opportunity to determine whether the explaination is adequate. By signing this executive order the Bush administration bypasses the courts altogether. This is not acceptable in a democracy with checks and balances.