David G. Koontz wrote:
Yet President Bush as publicly stated it requires a court order to
wiretap:
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way,
any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap,
it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed,
by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important
for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act,
constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is
necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
Bush didn't say it always requires a court order to wiretap. He said,
"any time you hear . . . a wiretap requires at court order". So, when
don't hear the government talking about a wiretap, the wiretap doesn't
require a court order. And he used the present tense. So, he didn't mean
". . . any time you hear . . . required a court order. And if you think
these "by the way" words weren't carefully chosen, see the care with
which Bush clarified the antecedent of "it", so his listeners would not
be left with the impression that it requires a court order to hear the
US Government talk about a wiretap.
When you take Bush at his word (every carefully chosen word) its easy to
see how little he cares for things like civil liberties and the rule of law.
-Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]