Now playing, The Apologists
I was reading Fausta's BHB link and I noticed a link to Rush Limbaugh's web site and the title "Rush Limbaugh takes on the NYT on spying accusations". I happened to hear Rush today and I have to say that I wasn't impressed. The gist of Rush's argument is;
-George Bush is trying to fight a war and this is the type of activity that must go on for the war to be won.
-Anyone that questions the above premise is trying to undermine the President.
-The Clinton administration used a software program called Echelon to indiscriminately spy on communications world wide.
-Bush did indeed inform Congress that this activity was taking place, on more than one occasion.
-The Times' only motivation is to sell a book for Simon and Schuster which is owned by the Times' parent company Viacom.
Rush's argument doesn't hold water. For starters the President doesn't have to trample the constitution to win a war. We elect a President to protect our liberty not subvert it. Second, anyone can question the President on his actions. Questioning a President isn't undermining him it's keeping him honest. Third, the Clinton administration had no right to use Echelon to spy on Americans any more that Bush had the right. Fourth, The motivation of the NYT is not central to the issue.
The central question of this issue is a simple one. Why not get a warrant? The Patriot Act specifically allows for the Government to get a warrant in classified courts. What is the administration afraid of? The only conclusion that one can draw is that the administration didn't have enough evidence to obtain a warrant. To make matters even more difficult to judge, the administration hasn't shown that these actions were necessary to stop an imminent attack.
We are fighting a war against Islamo-Fascists. We have been told by the Bush administration since 9/11 that the "evil doers" want to harm us because that hate our way of life. Trampling on the Bill of Rights does more harm to our way of life than anything the terrorists have done.
All Americans must take care to examine this issue very closely. The road to losing your liberty, like the road to hell, is paved with good intentions.
posted by RBM @ 7:22 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
There's a significant difference between operational and legal timelines. Think of it this way.
Soldiers in Afghanistan, in the process of taking down a terrorist camp, capture a satellite phone with a list of telephone numbers programmed in. Within 24 hours, the contacts will likely know that the phone is compromised. One hour after the capture of the phone, a call is made from one of the contacts in the US to a number in Pakistan. The NSA intercepts that call, and uses the "take" from it to provide operational intelligence to the field commanders in Afghanistan. They use that intel to prevent an attack on an American base.
Meanwhile, the lawyers in DC are still asleep, as is the judge at the Foreign Intel Surveillance Court.
Whose "civil rights" have been violated here?
Your scenerio is more closely related to true international spy activities and I believe legal.
Your example is not quite the same as is being reported. The reports that we are seeing are stating that information was obtained overseas that may have linked to a terrorst organization or a known terrorist. The President authorized the NSA to start intercepting those people's communications without obtaining a warrent.
My contention is twofold. One the administration has offered no proof of imminent activity and could have gone for a warrent (and legally needed to go for a warent) but didn't. I question why.
Two, It seems to me that the Patriot Act allows for the Government to get warrents in arrears for emergency situations. In effect, start spying and then get the warrent. If this last isn't true then add it to the Patriot act.
I haven't seen anyone stand up and say that what the President did was legal.
Post a Comment
<< Home