America eff yeah
There is no question that preventing the attack on LA represents some good work by all involved. Bush’s motive for declassifying the documents and talking about it now couldn’t be more transparent. I have to break the law, it’s for your own good. But lest we forget the would-be attack on Seattle back in 2001, that was successfully thwarted 9 months before 9/11. Somehow without the aid of questionable wire taps, and well marketed civil liberties erosions, we were still able to have some success. Were we doing enough? Doubtful or 9-11 wouldn’t have happened…or would it? That’s the trouble with a free society, it’s hard to keep people from blowing themselves up without taking away freedom. I’d like to see an overall more cohesive effort than we had pre-9/11, but one that stops short of illegal wiretaps.
My point? I don’t have one really. Just hoping we understand the context of this new information, and remember what we’re fighting for. Freedom isn’t free, and that’s why I don’t want to give it away.
My point? I don’t have one really. Just hoping we understand the context of this new information, and remember what we’re fighting for. Freedom isn’t free, and that’s why I don’t want to give it away.
posted by Robert_M at 2:29 PM
2 Comments:
Its the 14th, Happy Birthday!
Wire taps: you are simply wrong in stating that the wire taps are illegal. The President has significant constitutional powers…and is a co-equal branch of government. He does not have to bow to the whim of Congress nor the judicial branch. That being said, they are a bit uncomfortable to many people. Many people say – heck you have time to get the warrant after the fact, so why not do it then. The answer is actually quite simple. Suppose we have a tip from an informant about a call that is going to take pace in 3 hours. The invalid wisdom of the left would argue that you could just tap it and get the warrant after the fact. But it doesn’t actually work that way. If they know that they must get a warrant, then they at least have to go through a substantial volume of due diligence to ensure that when the do try to get the warrant, that it will be approved. I would suppose that in the event that it was denied, they would all be lawbreakers and should be prosecuted. If the process is a rubber stamp – and there is no danger in it getting denied, then it is utterly and completely useless. We should let the judges who are available 24/7 get some sleep.
I think this also begs the question that is someone in the US is talking to someone else outside of the US who is known to be a terrorist or to aid the effort – don’t we have an obligation to listen – and listen damn closely? If the answer is no, then there’s no point in arguing – I would recommend anyone that thinks this move to France. If the answer is yes, then getting a warrant – in the worse possible light would be a procedural technicality.
The erosion of civil liberties argument is weak a best. I have a cousin-in-law in Iraq working for the military. It would not bother me one little bit if there was a chance the government was listening in on any innocent communications (phone, e-mail, etc…) That is a small, small price for freedom. We have a massive amount of freedom and liberty…..this is like eroding a single grain of sand in the Iraqi desert.
If you want to be scared of erosion of liberties – you should fight like hell regarding the irresponsible Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain. Good riddance Sandra Day – let’s shoot that ruling down soon!
Post a Comment
<< Home