Still avoiding blogging on politics, I’ll merely link instead. It’s Saturday after all. Mark nails the principles at play in the new law passed by the House to legalize wireless wiretaps without a warrant.
Republicans can call it whatever they want. All that does is make them liars, in addition to being traitors to this country. Their message is clear, and childishly black and white: if you’re not willing to abandon this country’s values in order to hunt terrorists, you’re coddling terrorists. If you’re not willing to spit on the Constitution, you’re coddling terrorists.
<snip>
All power must be vested in the executive branch. Or you’re coddling terrorists.
Just vote “yes.” Or you’re coddling terrorists.
Give the President whatever he asks for. Or you’re coddling terrorists.
My thoughts exactly. I’d like to think I’m a Patriot. Under this litmus test, I’m coddling terrorists. Bulldookie.
{ 30 comments }
I’m so turning you in you big coddler you.
I’m so turning you in you big coddler you.
I’m so turning you in you big coddler you.
I’m so turning you in you big coddler you.
I’m so turning you in you big coddler you.
I sense frustration. Understandable. What frustrates me it this. People criticize the administration for every move they make with regard to fighting terrorism. Yet they offer no solutions, no suggestions, no plans, no ideas, no tactics, no strategy. And they voice these criticisms loudly, disrespectfully, and quite often, hysterically. Anyhow, soon the Republicans will be ousted from power. If our terrorism problems immediately disappear, I will take all of this back, and gladly. :)
I sense frustration. Understandable. What frustrates me it this. People criticize the administration for every move they make with regard to fighting terrorism. Yet they offer no solutions, no suggestions, no plans, no ideas, no tactics, no strategy. And they voice these criticisms loudly, disrespectfully, and quite often, hysterically. Anyhow, soon the Republicans will be ousted from power. If our terrorism problems immediately disappear, I will take all of this back, and gladly. :)
I sense frustration. Understandable. What frustrates me it this. People criticize the administration for every move they make with regard to fighting terrorism. Yet they offer no solutions, no suggestions, no plans, no ideas, no tactics, no strategy. And they voice these criticisms loudly, disrespectfully, and quite often, hysterically. Anyhow, soon the Republicans will be ousted from power. If our terrorism problems immediately disappear, I will take all of this back, and gladly. :)
I sense frustration. Understandable. What frustrates me it this. People criticize the administration for every move they make with regard to fighting terrorism. Yet they offer no solutions, no suggestions, no plans, no ideas, no tactics, no strategy. And they voice these criticisms loudly, disrespectfully, and quite often, hysterically. Anyhow, soon the Republicans will be ousted from power. If our terrorism problems immediately disappear, I will take all of this back, and gladly. :)
I sense frustration. Understandable. What frustrates me it this. People criticize the administration for every move they make with regard to fighting terrorism. Yet they offer no solutions, no suggestions, no plans, no ideas, no tactics, no strategy. And they voice these criticisms loudly, disrespectfully, and quite often, hysterically. Anyhow, soon the Republicans will be ousted from power. If our terrorism problems immediately disappear, I will take all of this back, and gladly. :)
Well, Brad, there’s always the “when in doubt, obey the law” suggestion, which the Bush Administration likes to snub. I mean, really, there’s no case for warrantless wiretaps when there’s a provision in the FISA law allowing for retro-active warrants. Deciding against using the courts shows that the Administration doesn’t want its practices put under judicial scrutiny. That’s always dangerous.
Actually they don’t want to be put under MSM scrutiny. It seems we are fighting two enemies on the war on terror. We all know the public has a right to know how we are catching terrorists.
Well, Brad, there’s always the “when in doubt, obey the law” suggestion, which the Bush Administration likes to snub. I mean, really, there’s no case for warrantless wiretaps when there’s a provision in the FISA law allowing for retro-active warrants. Deciding against using the courts shows that the Administration doesn’t want its practices put under judicial scrutiny. That’s always dangerous.
Well, Brad, there’s always the “when in doubt, obey the law” suggestion, which the Bush Administration likes to snub. I mean, really, there’s no case for warrantless wiretaps when there’s a provision in the FISA law allowing for retro-active warrants. Deciding against using the courts shows that the Administration doesn’t want its practices put under judicial scrutiny. That’s always dangerous.
Well, Brad, there’s always the “when in doubt, obey the law” suggestion, which the Bush Administration likes to snub. I mean, really, there’s no case for warrantless wiretaps when there’s a provision in the FISA law allowing for retro-active warrants. Deciding against using the courts shows that the Administration doesn’t want its practices put under judicial scrutiny. That’s always dangerous.
Well, Brad, there’s always the “when in doubt, obey the law” suggestion, which the Bush Administration likes to snub. I mean, really, there’s no case for warrantless wiretaps when there’s a provision in the FISA law allowing for retro-active warrants. Deciding against using the courts shows that the Administration doesn’t want its practices put under judicial scrutiny. That’s always dangerous.
Actually they don’t want to be put under MSM scrutiny. It seems we are fighting two enemies on the war on terror. We all know the public has a right to know how we are catching terrorists.
Actually they don’t want to be put under MSM scrutiny. It seems we are fighting two enemies on the war on terror. We all know the public has a right to know how we are catching terrorists.
Actually they don’t want to be put under MSM scrutiny. It seems we are fighting two enemies on the war on terror. We all know the public has a right to know how we are catching terrorists.
Actually they don’t want to be put under MSM scrutiny. It seems we are fighting two enemies on the war on terror. We all know the public has a right to know how we are catching terrorists.
Jim-
If the public knows how we are catching terrorists, then the terrorists know how we are catching terrorists. Then they change their tactics and we aren’t catching terrorists any more.
I don’t want to know the tactics we use to catch terrorists. I just want to know that we are not trampling the Constitution in the process.
Jim-
If the public knows how we are catching terrorists, then the terrorists know how we are catching terrorists. Then they change their tactics and we aren’t catching terrorists any more.
I don’t want to know the tactics we use to catch terrorists. I just want to know that we are not trampling the Constitution in the process.
Jim-
If the public knows how we are catching terrorists, then the terrorists know how we are catching terrorists. Then they change their tactics and we aren’t catching terrorists any more.
I don’t want to know the tactics we use to catch terrorists. I just want to know that we are not trampling the Constitution in the process.
Jim-
If the public knows how we are catching terrorists, then the terrorists know how we are catching terrorists. Then they change their tactics and we aren’t catching terrorists any more.
I don’t want to know the tactics we use to catch terrorists. I just want to know that we are not trampling the Constitution in the process.
Jim-
If the public knows how we are catching terrorists, then the terrorists know how we are catching terrorists. Then they change their tactics and we aren’t catching terrorists any more.
I don’t want to know the tactics we use to catch terrorists. I just want to know that we are not trampling the Constitution in the process.
Sean,
Great comment. Do you really think thatPresident Bush or anyone else in his administration would “trample” on our Constitution on purpose? I’m sure they wanted to do this and asked for advice and was told that he had Presidential power during a time of war to perform wireless wiretaps. The Court thought different about the interpreation of the law. This will not be the last time that Court see differnet from legislators and from the President. What would the personal gain be for wireless wiretaps?
Sean,
Great comment. Do you really think thatPresident Bush or anyone else in his administration would “trample” on our Constitution on purpose? I’m sure they wanted to do this and asked for advice and was told that he had Presidential power during a time of war to perform wireless wiretaps. The Court thought different about the interpreation of the law. This will not be the last time that Court see differnet from legislators and from the President. What would the personal gain be for wireless wiretaps?
Sean,
Great comment. Do you really think thatPresident Bush or anyone else in his administration would “trample” on our Constitution on purpose? I’m sure they wanted to do this and asked for advice and was told that he had Presidential power during a time of war to perform wireless wiretaps. The Court thought different about the interpreation of the law. This will not be the last time that Court see differnet from legislators and from the President. What would the personal gain be for wireless wiretaps?
Sean,
Great comment. Do you really think thatPresident Bush or anyone else in his administration would “trample” on our Constitution on purpose? I’m sure they wanted to do this and asked for advice and was told that he had Presidential power during a time of war to perform wireless wiretaps. The Court thought different about the interpreation of the law. This will not be the last time that Court see differnet from legislators and from the President. What would the personal gain be for wireless wiretaps?
Sean,
Great comment. Do you really think thatPresident Bush or anyone else in his administration would “trample” on our Constitution on purpose? I’m sure they wanted to do this and asked for advice and was told that he had Presidential power during a time of war to perform wireless wiretaps. The Court thought different about the interpreation of the law. This will not be the last time that Court see differnet from legislators and from the President. What would the personal gain be for wireless wiretaps?
Comments on this entry are closed.