Reasonably Ascertainable Reality

Thoughts and musings on current events and other random occurrences.

Location: South Jersey, United States

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Can we at least have an honest discussion?

Comments like this:

One of the most telling moments is when Debra Burlingame points out that prior to the September 11 attacks, the NSA was surveilling an al Qaeda member in Yemen who placed or received more than a dozen phone calls to and from a number in San Diego. Because these calls involved someone in the United States, the NSA didn't listen to them. It turned out that the "Kahlid" who was receiving the calls in San Diego was one of the September 11 hijackers. In fact, he was one of the hijackers who murdered Debra's brother, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77.
This is what Democrats and the news media call "domestic spying." Do the Democrats really want to return us to the days when al Qaeda could call its American operatives with impunity?

and this:

If Badawi has access to a cell phone, and calls an al Qaeda operative here in the U.S. to give the go-ahead on a mass terrorist plot, and that plot is executed killing thousands of innocent people on American soil, who will the NYTimes editors and Democrat leaders blame?

make me so angry its hard to believe so-called intelligent, rational, respected people make them. Is there an ounce of honesty in these statements? Unless I am monumentally uninformed, is there one Congressperson or Senator who has called for an end to this surveillance? Or can we all agree that the arguement, if there is one, is on the legality of WARRANTLESS surveillance. Surveillance by the executive branch with no oversight. We can argue that all day. Fine, legal points pro and con. But to actually pretend as though Democrats (and lest we forget Graham, McCain and other Republicans) actually don't want our intelligence agencies to spy on these people is out and out lies. Its lies and its the tool of the weaker arguement. of the year. Puh-leeze. If they had comments, chimpanzees could have taken apart that post in about 10 seconds.


Blogger Dave Justus said...

One idea I saw tossed around (at Powerline I think) is to have a clarifying statement passed by congress on whether the AUMF satisfies the FISA requirement for warrantless wiretapping.

It would, it seems to me, solve the legal issue pretty well.

I am still unsure if I would like that outcome or not though. While it would make the President's Program clearly legal, it would also (I presume) allow a lot more wiretapping to be done as well, including purely domestic calls.

There is some benefit to this being a 'gray area' in that it keeps overreach to a minimum.

12:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Find an Attorney