A small editorial about recent events.

[Daniel F. Fisher]

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 majordomo at metzdowd.com