Comments on: Bush’s defense of wiretapping, and four reasons to reject it http://theannalog.com/2006/01/23/bushs-defense-of-wiretapping-and-four-reasons-to-reject-it A story every day? Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:30:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on Bush’s defense of wiretapping, and four reasons to reject it by: Andy http://theannalog.com/2006/01/23/bushs-defense-of-wiretapping-and-four-reasons-to-reject-it#comment-156 Tue, 24 Jan 2006 04:36:38 +0000 http://theannalog.com/2006/01/23/bushs-defense-of-wiretapping-and-four-reasons-to-reject-it#comment-156 While reading about the ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA, I was surprised to see Greenpeace listed as a party to the lawsuit. After all, what's an environmental advocacy group got to do with a lawsuit about civil liberties? As it turns out, a lot. From <a href="http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/23494res20060116.html" rel="nofollow">Greenpeace's statement</a>: <blockquote> Recently released government documents reveal that Greenpeace has been the subject of surveillance by the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Forces. [...] This is a shocking abuse of power. [...] A government that can't maintain a distinction between terror and civil dissent is not a healthy or democratic government. </blockquote> Right on, Greenpeace. While reading about the ACLU’s lawsuit against the NSA, I was surprised to see Greenpeace listed as a party to the lawsuit. After all, what’s an environmental advocacy group got to do with a lawsuit about civil liberties? As it turns out, a lot. From Greenpeace’s statement:

Recently released government documents reveal that Greenpeace has been the subject of surveillance by the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Forces. […] This is a shocking abuse of power. […] A government that can’t maintain a distinction between terror and civil dissent is not a healthy or democratic government.

Right on, Greenpeace.

]]>