Friday, January 27, 2006
Bush, NSA, and Common Sense
Just to be clear: If you have a good chat with one of Osama's buddies, I don't care where you are--I want the government taking action to protect America.
Civil rights and the privacy of citizens is important but takes a back seat to making sure another 9.11 doesn't happen.
Vice President Cheney explained it this way: If someone in America is talking to someone in another nation, and one of them is a suspected Al Qaeda member, the NSA might be listening. I have no problem with that--none--whatsoever; frankly I don't think the majority of Americans do either. This is just another part of the bash-Bush media/democrat agenda.
Civil rights and the privacy of citizens is important but takes a back seat to making sure another 9.11 doesn't happen.
Vice President Cheney explained it this way: If someone in America is talking to someone in another nation, and one of them is a suspected Al Qaeda member, the NSA might be listening. I have no problem with that--none--whatsoever; frankly I don't think the majority of Americans do either. This is just another part of the bash-Bush media/democrat agenda.
Thoughtful Readers Speak:
<< Home
RIGHTFAITH: Where everything favors the stewardship of patrimony. All content is believed to be correct but may be amended based upon new information. The content of this page may be republished with proper citation without the expressed consent of the author. This site is not, in any manner whatsoever, associated with the religious philosophism from the Indian penninsula. All comments or emails to the author become the property of the author and may be published or deleted without notice or reason provided. Copyrighted 2005.
We had wiretaps, and it didn't prevent 9/11. The argument that Bush's illegal wiretapping "prevents another 9/11" is specious.
The program surveilled people who had nothing to do with any terrorism, or with Al-queda. Is that still something you're comfortable with?
The wiretapping was
1) Illegal
2) Needless
3) Not effective
I don't see on what grounds it can be justified. Tell me, JR, is there anything you won't allow the President to do so long as he offers "turrurism!" as a defense? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious where you believe the boundaries are for the President's powers. Nowhere? Just tell me one thing you wouldn't let the President do, even if he told you it was to "prevent another 9/11."
The program surveilled people who had nothing to do with any terrorism, or with Al-queda. Is that still something you're comfortable with?
The wiretapping was
1) Illegal
2) Needless
3) Not effective
I don't see on what grounds it can be justified. Tell me, JR, is there anything you won't allow the President to do so long as he offers "turrurism!" as a defense? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious where you believe the boundaries are for the President's powers. Nowhere? Just tell me one thing you wouldn't let the President do, even if he told you it was to "prevent another 9/11."
Just to be clear - I don't have a problem with the government wiretapping Americans or anybody else actually having conversations with terrorists. Absolutely no problem.
But a legal framework for doing that already exists. The Bush administration and his Justice department have repeatedly said as recently as 6 months ago that the current legal frameworks offered no obstacle to successfully evesdropping on terrorists. So what was the necessity to break the law?
But a legal framework for doing that already exists. The Bush administration and his Justice department have repeatedly said as recently as 6 months ago that the current legal frameworks offered no obstacle to successfully evesdropping on terrorists. So what was the necessity to break the law?
Hey there Chet, you said "We had wiretaps, and it didn't prevent 9/11. The argument that Bush's illegal wiretapping "prevents another 9/11" is specious." Let's see, its 2006 and the twin towers came down in 2001. Hmm... Seems to be working to me, I can't think of one major terrorist attack on American soil since 2001. Can you? Let say there was one, would that be a successful program? Yep, I think only one major terrotist attack successfully perpetuated on American soil would still ring as a NSA success rate. But O yeah, not even one terrorist attack in 5 1/2 years. Bush bashing is specious Chet, not protecting Americans.
Seems to be working to me, I can't think of one major terrorist attack on American soil since 2001.
I can't think of one they prevented. Can you?
Can you actually substantiate your claim that the illegal wiretapping has prevented any American terrorist attacks? Or should we conclude that anything we've started doing since 9/11 has "prevented" another attack?
Can you give me the names of the terrorists that were apprehended as a result of the illegal wiretapping? No?
How about the murderer of 3000 Americans on 9/11? Has Bush's illegal wiretapping resulted in an arrest of that man? No?
Exactly what, then, has the wiretapping actually accomplished? I notice too that our civilization hasn't been decimated by the impact of a planet-sized asteroid since 2001. Should Bush take credit for that, too?
I can't think of one they prevented. Can you?
Can you actually substantiate your claim that the illegal wiretapping has prevented any American terrorist attacks? Or should we conclude that anything we've started doing since 9/11 has "prevented" another attack?
Can you give me the names of the terrorists that were apprehended as a result of the illegal wiretapping? No?
How about the murderer of 3000 Americans on 9/11? Has Bush's illegal wiretapping resulted in an arrest of that man? No?
Exactly what, then, has the wiretapping actually accomplished? I notice too that our civilization hasn't been decimated by the impact of a planet-sized asteroid since 2001. Should Bush take credit for that, too?
I haven't played ice hockey since 2001, and we haven't had any terrorist attacks since then. Boy, it's a good thing I quit playing ice hockey.
Post a Comment
<< Home
