We could either i) put look outs at places that serve lunch ii) prep Condi Rice on why our biggest security need is a missile defense system Why one has any chance of bringing rain?
I am not arguing that the search would be productive. I am arguing that searching is better than not searching. Getting back on topic, Bush's people were told by Clinton's people that our biggest security threat was OBL. Bush downgraded the OBL issue in favor of promoting his political agenda (like fighting internet p*rn and national missile defense system). Adding to the list of oversight challenged W f*ckups: federal response to Katrina (which W is actively holding back documents from Congressional investors) NSA illegal spying (again more lack of co-operation with investigators from the WH) manipulation of the national security threat levels for political gain Cheney leaking secret intell for political gain For sh*ts and grins let's compare the above lists with what a Republican Congress decided needing investigation during Clinton's presidency: White Water (more blood on Congress's hands than a governor's) File-gate Travel-gate
Of course, there was more to it than just the title. If we knew you favored, say, airline food, then we could focus the searches on airports. If you had previously stated that you only dined in say, DC or New York, we could narrow the focus even more. If we know that you really, really like the food at one place, we could assume you might try to eat there again. If we know you're recruiting people to go eat at other airports, that helps also.
Back to the larger issues for a second, I wouldn't “just trust” any politician, no matter how much I liked him or her for 2 reasons: 1. The basis of our government is checks and balances. 2. What happens when some one I don't like takes office and has the same powers I might have been comfortable giving to one specific person (which I never would be comfortable "just trusting" any politician). I don't think these expanding executive powers with no oversight are Republican or Democratic issues. I feel that the American people are only tolerating these expanding executive powers because of the polarization of the parties. That is why I believe that this political division is risking our very liberties.
At least there IS an argument to make for the legitimacy of Bush's actions-- even FB has acknowledged that. However, your bank robber... no hope!
You completely missed my point. Your post suggested that wiretapping wasn't something worth fretting over because it's only a minute fraction of Bush's policy, which is a pretty fallacious suggestion to make.
Jesus, Giddyup, how much of the kool-aid are you consuming these days? Bush has bypassed using FISA wiretapping oversight despite the law having the provision to get approval retroactively! Bush is saying he doesn't have to justify spying on Americans *at all* to a court of law. Have you heard of the 4th Ammendment of the freaking US Constitution?!
I've been spied on, have you? I'm thinking of making a club out of it. Sell memberships with badges or something. It's happening so widely now that soon it won't be special anymore. We need to cash in NOW! Quit trying to make it sound like every fifth American is being spied upon. If they are circumventing the court, there must be a reason apart from some nefarious plan to become The American Dictator. The President's Administration is trying to protect our soil and our citizens from terrorism. Do you have an equal amount of disdain for the <b>dis</b>loyal Americans who are actually doing the spying or is this just a politically-motivated hatred? I wonder how the "illegal" eavesdroppers sleep at night? Maybe proudly-- because they are doing a foundational part of keeping our nation safe? That's what I bet. I'd support a Democratic president doing the same thing...
And the reason that lies underneath my thinking is that there are legal and historical scholars who don't fret about this like you (and others here) do. I didn't miss your point; I just don't buy it. I understand your concern, but I'm more sympathetic to the Administration's concern and responsibility to protect our infrastructure and our people. If the "illegal" wire-tapping gets too abusive, I'll join your ranks, but right now the American citizens you are so concerned about are in communication with enemies of the US. What more needs be said? I'd support a Democratic president doing the same thing...
That my be your belief, but we have no way of knowing if there is a valid reason or not. It isn't up to the President to decide, and I would never trust a President to just tell me there is a valid reason, and I'm supposed to buy into that. There has to be some oversight to ensure that it is for Natl. security reasons. It isn't too much to ask. It could be every 5th American that is being spied on, and you have no way to tell. But even if it is just one American being spied on without a valid reason then the President is overstepping his authority. Congress purposefully strick down extra wiretapping authority when they voted for the AUMF. At least some of the members of Congress who were briefed had questions and concerns about the program which were ignored by the administration. I've shown ample reasons not to trust this administration and take them at their word. And nobody has been able to show any reasons why we should trust the administration when they say it will only be used against Al-Qaeda.
Yeah there must be some reason for W to circumvent the FISA court. I suspect if that reason could stand the light of day we would have heard it by now. I also strongly suspect that the FISA court would not have allowed this spying, else why not go through the court? This is the simplest and most plausible explanation.
That doesn't really matter. It is wrong and if ANY of the president's activities are wrong, he must be taken to task for it. The GOP seemed to understand this when Clinton was in office. How many times did we hear that there was credible evidence of WMDs but assured that we (and the appropriate oversight committees in Congress) couldn't see the evidence for national security reasons?
The way the WH has handled this latest Cheney thing is one more in a long line of examples of their fundamental dishonesty. No matter what the flap, their first instinct is apparently to be dishonest. And, when confronted, they flatly refuse to answer questions about why they didn't come clean with the American people. It's not an incident or two or three (see FB's list and add, at least, the now exposed dishonesty about when they learned about the levees), it's a habit. It's a way of doing business. And they want us to just trust them that they're doing the right thing? No thanks.
And yet the list of people who thought Iraq had no weapons was pretty prominent. Hand Blix and the entire team of weapons inspectors that were actually in Iraq searching the country would have been my first choice of people to listen to, but Bush decided to invade 6 months before they could deliver their report. How about all of the CIA analysts whose reports were totally ignored in favor of "intelligence" from "Curveball," who has proven to be an outright liar (just as the CIA analysts said he was). A BIG part of the reason that so many people believed Iraq had WMDs was because the Bush admin spread that rumor as far and wide as they could and suppressed any evidence that would disprove the rumor.
The WMD stuff is so tainted that it has changed the way politicians speak. On Letterman the other night McCain started to say Weapons of Mass Destruction when talking about Iran and he stopped at "Weap.." and said "uh, nuclear and chemical weapons" instead. I thought that was telling.
And how exactly is anyone supposed to know if the wiretapping is getting "too abusive?" There is exactly zero oversight from anyone. That is the problem with giving anyone in government unchecked authority. It doesn't matter if it is abused right now, if the authority is unchecked then the mere possibility of abuse is too great to ignore. How do we know this? They won't even take these cases to the secret court that was designed to examine exactly these types of wiretaps. What needs to be said is that the administration will follow established law and get court orders for ALL wiretaps, just as Bush claimed that they already do. That's nice. I would not.
