Tuesday, December 27, 2005

 

Defending FISA?

Something's occured to me. I'm sure it's occured to y'all a long time ago.

Notice how the admin's secret, unwarrented wiretaps are getting us liberals to say "why didn't they go through FISA" and thus defend that institution?

It's as if there is a strategy: do the most outrageous, even pointless, things so that way the defenders of our liberties will resort to even defending the less outrageous and actually useful, but still wrong things you really want to do.

I know I've been mealy mouthed about this on the past, but, while I prefer a wiretap having a FISA warrent to one having no warrent at all -- even the FISA warrenting process is suspect.

The fact of the matter is that, even under our more Constitutionally acceptible, pre-9/11 rules, if Clinton and especially Bush were not so interested in not breaking eggshells around the Saudis, the 9/11 conspiracy would have been thrawrted using convensional law enforcement techniques. There is no need to go around the Constitution to keep us safe. It's worked for us for 200+ years, it can work for us for more time. And if it doesn't work, they should at least have the decency to ask for an ammendment so people actually will discuss the issues. They shouldn't hide behind a "war" (which is constructed so that it will never end -- thus making what the executive branch is doing not a "war power" but a permanent change which should only be done by ammendment). And why isn't the "Constitution in Exile" crowd up in arms about a very real abuse of executive power in the same way they are up in arms about logical consequences of the commerce clause and power of the purse?

Anyway, even if the BushCO plans would keep us safe -- even though utility is a necessary condition for subverting the Constitution, it is not sufficient.

As Ben Franklin said: "those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither".

Comments:
Thank you! It's about time somebody mentioned that little fact. The entire FISA process as it stands under law is, at the very least, a rather questionable procedure from a civil rights perspective. It speaks volumes about the Bush Administration that he couldn't even follow such an easy statute.

2006 could be a very interesting year. Even many dyed-in-the-wool conservatives are backing away from Bush on this NSA spying scandal. Nice to see there may be some shred of principle left in Lincoln's party.
 
And yet Faux "news" is still spinning this as if those who leaked/broke the story were wrong to do so ...

Harry Truman must be spinning in his grave. Even in WWII, with all of the abuses of government power which occurred then, questioning the authority of government to do things or the acceptibility of profits by defense contractors was considered patriotic, not subversive.
 
Hi
Join for free. Most of 2 millions members.List of most popular hot girls in your area. Find today sex partner here from list of most hot girls in your area. Adult only.
hotgirls xanax sex sexcam phentermine xanax phentermine sex hotbabe sexforadult sex sexygirlsfree sexygirls sexfree adult hotgirlsonline freeadult sexvideo
viagra valium meridia adipex ativan xanax drugs valium tramadol viagra drug store free hosting viagra levitra cialis
Enjoy
 
Wonderful and informative web site. I used information from that site its great. » » »
 
best regards, nice info here
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?