Why does the current situation reminds me of the scene in the movie A Few Good Men, when the colonel played by Jack Nicholson screams at the prosecutor saying everyone enjoys the protection he (rather the military) provides, but then question the way in which they provide that protection?

 

Because this is a land ruled by laws. And not by a person. The same argument seems to be the main thrust of the defense for illegal wiretaps into phone conversations and financial transactions - both considered private by laws passed in the seventies.

 

The current controversy and press bashing, mostly the venerable New York Times, should not be happening. In late 2001, a White House briefing did mention in strong words that the Administration will be watching the financial transactions of suspected terrorists in all parts of the world, and will ensure that the funds will not be available to create terror. Fine, it's a good thing. So the next logical step would be to get the Congress to pass some new laws so that the NSA etc can monitor these supposedly private transactions.

 

Heck no, that is beyond our Chief. He's got the power and he's going to flaunt and willfully neglect the laws of this nation and everywhere else. So the NY Times exposed this practice of ILLEGAL monitoring of ALL transactions, and guess who is at fault here? The NY Times! They should have shut their mouths and played the shill for this White House, like Fox News does.

 

The Emperor-like behavior of The Decider and his sidekick, The Darkside, should not be tolerated. I'd rather you go through the Congress and obey the laws of the land, than act like President Musharaff who decides to alter the Constitution of Pakistan to keep himself in power.

 

Mr.President, I'd rather choose not to have the umbrella of protection you supposedely provide by perverting the Constitution of this country. Abide by the laws - you're no exception!