Bush and civil liberties, part 1

If George W. Bush says that we are safer from the results of illegal torture, illegal wiretapping, and cruel treatment of people worldwide, when why don't we go a step further? With Bush's logic, we could say that society would be safer if all of the governmental critics and members of the “liberal” press were disposed of (especially to an undisclosed location) and a police state established with King George as head (in re to the statement by a recent federal judge that, in response to the case brought on by the administration for wiretapping without a warrant, 'there are no hereditary kings [in America]', Bush seemed to dispute her ruling in its entirety). I mean, wasn't the government in the genius George Orwell's 1984 world pretty safe for the normal people? (Once you get past the fact that Big Brother dictated their every move.)

So come at it Bush, if you love freedom so much then why are you chipping at the very bedrock of our free society and political system? A free and honest press (hard to be that way when you are polarizing it more and more by attacking on publication or another), morals (yes, torturing is bad, especially when it has been proven to rarely heed good results), right to privacy, and a transparent, open, and accountable government are all essential to a liberty-fashioned government.

The only thing that has changed since the September 11, 2001 attacks — besides many dead as a result of the event and the events directly succeeding it — has been the attitude of the press and people of this nation to not demand a transparent enough government, the thought that 'if it will make us safer, let's not question it' has been followed many times by the 'evil, liberal' New York Times after 9/11 and during the run up to the Iraq war (which few questioned the sketchy evidence of). Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said a couple weeks ago that criticizing the defense and other strategies of this administration is meaning you are helping and “appeasing the terrorists”, if that doesn't scream 'I don't want a free press or to be open and accountable for my actions' then what does? Bush and others in the administration have reiterated a slew of times at the “liberal media bias” ('Mr. President, an example please?'). Why don't they look up the word “liberal” in the dictionary? (Oh, that's right, liberals write the dictionary, so that is why the definition for the word “liberal” says nothing of evil terrorist-appeasers.)

Maybe the Bush administration and its followers should live up to their Neoconservative ideology's preaching of freedom and democracy and actually help, not harm, those values that they are currently trampling upon in the United States.


Links
Inspiration for post:
"Chalk Up Another One for Torture" on Eric Umansky's blog (with related links)
"Failures of Imagination" by Eric Umansky in Colombia Journalism Review, September 2006
"Standards Issue" transcript from On the Media, 8 September 2006

News and commentary:
LA Times op-ed on topic
UPI analysis on topic
"Bush admits to CIA prisons" by BBC News (with related links), 7 September 2006

Profiles:
"Q&A on CIA prisons" by BBC News (with related links)
"Profile: Guantanamo Bay" by BBC News (with related links)

Reference:
"Criticism of the War on Terrorism" article on Wikipedia

Documents:
UN report on GITMO

Updated 13 September 2006
More links, references, better editing, and more information to follow.

News
Politics
Current Affairs
Terrorism
9/11
Bush
News and politics