Carol Platt Liebau: Common Sense Often MSM Casualty

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Common Sense Often MSM Casualty

The heading to this post parodies the headline of this story: "Liberties Often War Casualties."

There, Ron Fournier argues that "Eavesdropping without warrants, redefining torture, building loopholes into the Geneva Conventions and the USA Patriot Act will be parts of Bush's legacy" — as if that's a bad thing.

For starters, he needs to get his facts right. The Geneva Conventions has never covered those who target innocents and wear no uniform. In fact, it's the left that has tried to "build a loophole" into the Geneva Conventions -- one that will protect terrorists.

As for "redefining" torture, what is Fournier talking about? Again, it's the left that's tried to ensure that the definition of "torture" will be stretched to encompass any activity that results in "discomfort" to America's enemies. Measures like sleep deprivation and psychological coercion should trouble no one when they're trained on people who want to kill us; stronger measures are appropriate, as well, when American lives are at stake. (Senseless, ignorant abuse a la Abu Ghraib, of course, is never appropriate).

We've already covered the "eavesdropping without warrants" -- 30 or so instances where the President authorized or reauthorized such measures, covering people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations. These measures may well have resulted in the detection of plots against our homeland; as John notes cogently over at Powerline, "The President takes lawful measures to protect Americans against terrorist attack, with the knowledge and consent of Congress and the courts. Some scandal!"

As for the Patriot Act, passed in the wake of 9/11 with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, if I were President Bush, I'd be proud to stake my legacy on it.

Who are these people in the MSM and in politics who want to undermine or eliminate every weapon we have for fighting the war on Islamofascist terror? It's imperative that we take names and hold them to account. For their complete and craven misunderstanding (or worse) of the war on terror will be part of their legacy.

11 Comments:

Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Carol wrote, "We've already covered the 'eavesdropping without warrants' -- 30 or so instances, covering people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations."

This claim is completely false.

I don't know if Carol has difficulties with reading/listening comprehension (making this a mistake based on bad information) or a deliberate lie. Maybe Carol can clear that up for us.

The 30 number does not cover individual instances. The President reauthorized the illegal program times. At any one time, this authorization covered multiple individuals. (This was made clear in the Presidential address today.)

According to initial reports, at any given moment there were 500 or so people covered by the program. In other words, on the low end, thousands of US residents were subject to illegal surveillance.

Why are you misleading your readers, Carol?

4:00 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Finally we get to the threats. Carol wrote, "Who are these people in the MSM and in politics who want to undermine or eliminate every weapon we have for fighting the war on Islamofascist terror? It's imperative that we take names and hold them to account."

How should we "take names", Carol? Maybe we should just sick the Pentagon and the NSA on anyone who has the temerity to question Our Dear Leader. I have to admit that I am concerned by the use of the phrase "hold them to account", coming as it does from a person who publically advocates indefinite detentions (without charges being filed) and torture.

4:13 PM  
Blogger stackja1945 said...

If we play by some twisted rules that control one side and not the other then there will be little wonder why the game is lost.

4:47 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Yeah it's quite a shame that we have to play by twisted rules like this...

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How could our country have survived for over 200 years when it required all previous Presidents to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

10:23 PM  
Blogger stackja1945 said...

Lincoln did not obey the twisted rules. FDR had Hitler. LBJ had Ho Peace and lost. Nixon had the NYT Wapo axis and lost.

2:25 AM  
Blogger Bachbone said...

Transcripts of the president's speech, posted by even the liberal media, say exactly what Carol posted. Neither she, nor the president, addressed how many individuals were in those authorized instances of surveillance. Neither Carol nor the president's speech mentioned the "officials" who cited the alleged numbers.

As far as I know, this president has not sicced the Pentagon or NSA on anyone outside the al Qaeda surveillances. However, we know that Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marseca, in the Clinton administration, obtained some 900 FBI files on former White House staff from the Bush and Reagan administrations. We know, too, that the Heritage Foundation, National Rifle Association, Citizens Against Government Waste, National Review, The American Spectator, Western Journalism Center, Judicial Watch, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick and Billy Dale (White House Travel Office Director fired and prosecuted on trumped up charges by Clinton appointees)were audited by the IRS during Clinton's tenure.

As stackja1945 mentioned, Lincoln and Roosevelt (and Wilson, by the way), all found it necessary to temporarily suspend some civil liberties during wartime. Other nations have done the same. Ours have always been restored when the threat passed. How quickly we forget that 3000 people died 9/11 and that al Qaeda almost daily tells us that it will repeat that terror, perhaps with tens of thousands of deaths next time.

10:40 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Bachbone wrote, "Transcripts of the president's speech, posted by even the liberal media, say exactly what Carol posted. Neither she, nor the president, addressed how many individuals were in those authorized instances of surveillance."

According to the NY Times report those "30 or so instances" of Presidential authorization covered illegal surveillance of "thousands" of American citizens. I note that you do not choose to dispute those numbers, instead falling back onto the typical Right Wing "I've got nothing so I'll slam Bill Clinton" crapola. Fine, we'll take them as a given.

Cut to the chase, Bachbone. President George W. Bush has expressly violated the laws of the United States by ordering the NSA to engage in surveillance of United States citizens without a warrant. Do you accept the White House's claim the President can, at his discretion, choose to disobey the law of the land?

6:41 PM  
Blogger Pete said...

twister said, "Do you accept the White House's claim the President can, at his discretion, choose to disobey the law of the land?"

Obviously you do, twister - as you continually cover the exposed butt of your hero, Bubba! eeeuuuuu!!!

4:57 AM  
Blogger Bachbone said...

Repeating, neither the president nor Carol mentioned the individual numbers in the al Qaeda surveillance. The NY Times post 11/17/2005 cited (paraphrasing) "officials...familiar with the NSA" matter as giving the individual numbers. Until we know who these "officials" were, their credance is as good as is the NYTimes'.

President Bush's criticism from conservatives is about 1000% greater than liberal criticism of anything former president Clinton did while in office. Was it all right for Bill Clinton to disobey "laws of the land?" Liberals must think it was.

3:46 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

I was disgusted by Clinton's involvement with Monica Lewinsky and said so at the time. I was also infuriated by his pardon of Marc Rich -- and said so back then.

But in case you haven't noticed, we've entered a new decade, a new administration, and a new set of much more serious crimes.

But you will undoubtedly disagree, still seized with hatred for Clinton as you are. As Mr. Twister points out, it is about all you can rely on anymore when confronted with the deadly incompetence and arrogant greed of Bush and his cabal.

7:55 PM  
Blogger Pete said...

What an absolute crock of bull-stuffing, duke!

7:07 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google