Troubling Responses
I have been engaging in a blog-discussion over on the Beaufort Gazette's site and have gotten some troubling responses from the "general public"....
"If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear..." and "If you are not with us, then you are against us..." style Bush following lemmingspeak....
Perhaps in my last post, I did not make it clear that I appreciate the hard, diligent work that our NSA, FBI and CIA do to keep us safe from terrorists. Believe me, I think that they have foiled many, many a plot to do us harm as a country. However, there are laws in this country. Laws that must be adhered to be everyone - the President included.
I do not disagree with WHAT the Bush Administration did. I disagree with HOW they did it.
According to the Supreme Court nominee Alito - who knows more about the law than I do - "I think it does not constitute a check and balance," he said. "You can't have the administration and a select number of members alter the law. It can't be done."
They could have asked for oversight from federal judges - as is stated in FISA, but they didn't....and that is the problem. The Federal Information Surveillance Act of 1978 allows for retroactive warrants for searches. This allows for the "flexibility" and "agility" in pursuing suspects needed in such activities. The Bush Administration circumvented this by citing not the War Powers Act, but the September 14th Congressional resolution which authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
According to most congressional members who voted for this resolution, it gave the President the authority to punish those responsible for the acts of September 11th - not to run rampant over the Constitution. The key word in that statement is "appropriate". It is not appropriate to break the laws that are set in stone for such actions. The ends do not justify the means. They never do.
It is a slippery slope which I for one do not want to see my country headed down. I am not some liberal chicken little who screams that the sky is falling; I am a conservative Republican who is scared shitless over what the President I helped elect is doing to the Constitution. If we give in on this front and allow the Executive Branch unlimited (an unchecked) powers to pursue whatever they feel is "in the best interest of the country", what will be next?
The statement "Unless you are a suspected terrorist, you have little to fear about the NSA monitoring your emails and phone calls" is just as frightening.
That is pretty much the same logical argument that other notable dictators - including the one we are deposing in Iraq - have used over the years. The fact that we don't have to make that statement in the United States is what separates us from them.
"If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear..." and "If you are not with us, then you are against us..." style Bush following lemmingspeak....
Perhaps in my last post, I did not make it clear that I appreciate the hard, diligent work that our NSA, FBI and CIA do to keep us safe from terrorists. Believe me, I think that they have foiled many, many a plot to do us harm as a country. However, there are laws in this country. Laws that must be adhered to be everyone - the President included.
I do not disagree with WHAT the Bush Administration did. I disagree with HOW they did it.
According to the Supreme Court nominee Alito - who knows more about the law than I do - "I think it does not constitute a check and balance," he said. "You can't have the administration and a select number of members alter the law. It can't be done."
They could have asked for oversight from federal judges - as is stated in FISA, but they didn't....and that is the problem. The Federal Information Surveillance Act of 1978 allows for retroactive warrants for searches. This allows for the "flexibility" and "agility" in pursuing suspects needed in such activities. The Bush Administration circumvented this by citing not the War Powers Act, but the September 14th Congressional resolution which authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
According to most congressional members who voted for this resolution, it gave the President the authority to punish those responsible for the acts of September 11th - not to run rampant over the Constitution. The key word in that statement is "appropriate". It is not appropriate to break the laws that are set in stone for such actions. The ends do not justify the means. They never do.
It is a slippery slope which I for one do not want to see my country headed down. I am not some liberal chicken little who screams that the sky is falling; I am a conservative Republican who is scared shitless over what the President I helped elect is doing to the Constitution. If we give in on this front and allow the Executive Branch unlimited (an unchecked) powers to pursue whatever they feel is "in the best interest of the country", what will be next?
The statement "Unless you are a suspected terrorist, you have little to fear about the NSA monitoring your emails and phone calls" is just as frightening.
That is pretty much the same logical argument that other notable dictators - including the one we are deposing in Iraq - have used over the years. The fact that we don't have to make that statement in the United States is what separates us from them.
posted by bisbohemian at 6:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home