Mr. Hinderaker:
Are you deliberately obfuscating, or was your Harvard graduate education, like George W. Bush's, essentially an unearned privilege of your "class?" To wit, from the above piece, you write:
The Time account also includes this:
(A) knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications.
We were able to do this because of the NSA's international terrorist surveillance program. If the Democrats succeed in killing that program insofar as it involves communications with one end inside the United States, on the ground that the program constitutes an invasion of privacy, the NSA will be able to break up terrorist plots overseas, but not ones that involve people (citizens or otherwise) inside the United States, and most directly threaten Americans.
Now if you're such a great lawyer, you should recognize, and acknowledge, the difference between this administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping and any "terrorist surveillance program." The Bushies have chosen to violate the Constitution and statutory authority, specifically the FISA Act (which placed extremely low barriers on securing warrants, and allowed the AG to commence warrantless eavesdropping on an emergency basis and secure FIS Court approval within 72 hours), in their alleged "surveillance program." Also, I've neither seen nor read of anyone asserting the terrorists' right to privacy in their objections to Bush's clear constitutional and statutory violations. The objection is to the unilateral arrogation of power by the administration, and their utter disregard of the balance of powers doctrine of the Constitution.
But then, if you're making money from your sycophancy, I guess your support for the subversion of our democratic traditions is A-OK.
With all due respect,
Ron
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
