More Accountability
The New York Times today gets the vapors over a program which, according to its defenders, has been a "critical tool in helping disrupt terrorist plots and prevent attacks inside the United States."
Apparently, the NSA was monitoring some domestic phone calls that were believed to be "tied" to Al Qaeda phone numbers in the days after 9/11 (when the left still remembered what having a terrorist attack on American soil was like).
Who's upset about this monitoring, and who wants to weaken the government's intelligence gathering efforts? Again, we just want to know, so that if an attack comes, we'll be aware of exactly who enabled it.
And speaking of accountability -- not only has the publication of the Times article jepordized ongoing investigations, it's also tied to a book release. Not that the giants of journalistic ethics at the Times informed us of this fact.
Shameful.
One further thought: Who, exactly, is leaking this classified information? Isn't the alleged leaking of classified information the "big crime" that has had the left wing shrieking for months? And isn't it just as wrong when it's revealing a program that has helped protect America from terrorist attacks, as when it reveals the identity of a once-covert CIA desk jockey?
Apparently, the NSA was monitoring some domestic phone calls that were believed to be "tied" to Al Qaeda phone numbers in the days after 9/11 (when the left still remembered what having a terrorist attack on American soil was like).
Who's upset about this monitoring, and who wants to weaken the government's intelligence gathering efforts? Again, we just want to know, so that if an attack comes, we'll be aware of exactly who enabled it.
And speaking of accountability -- not only has the publication of the Times article jepordized ongoing investigations, it's also tied to a book release. Not that the giants of journalistic ethics at the Times informed us of this fact.
Shameful.
One further thought: Who, exactly, is leaking this classified information? Isn't the alleged leaking of classified information the "big crime" that has had the left wing shrieking for months? And isn't it just as wrong when it's revealing a program that has helped protect America from terrorist attacks, as when it reveals the identity of a once-covert CIA desk jockey?
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:11 AM
6 Comments:
I'm chuckling over the big "secret". If Jay Rockefeller know, lots of people knew.
I’d rather be alive with my civil liberties abridged than dead with them intact. Still, I think the president needs to change the law, not violate it. I think Bush may have done the right thing, but not the legal thing. He needs to do both. Meanwhile, thank God the Brooklyn Bridge stands and all those who use it are still alive.
So far, we have only the word of unnamed sources that warrants were not obtained.
The NYT may not have a financial interest in Risen's book, but it has shown a deep interest in opposing President Bush at every turn since his election. As has Viacom, which owns The Free Press.
If Bush had not done everything possible following 9/11, his critics, including the NYT, would have a field day complaining when we get hit again.
Darned if he does, darned if he doesn't. Better safe than sorry, I say, when the 'sorry' could involved thousands of casualties.
A "little security?"
"Inconveniences?" Not the words I would use to describe the threats we face from terrorists.
This is just sad.
The Pentagon is illegally tracking domestic anti-war protestors, and conservatives excuse it because the Bush administration claims it protect us from terrorists.
The Bush administration institutes wide spread torture as official US policy, and conservatives excuse it because the Bush administration claims it protect us from terrorists.
A United States citizen is held in solitary confinement for three years without being charged with anything, and conservatives excuse it because the Bush administration claims it protect us from terrorists.
Now we find out the President personally ordered the unlawful surveillance of US residents, and conservatives excuse it because the Bush administration claims it protect us from terrorists.
Conservatives making these arguments, are claiming that President Bush can violate the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments to the Constitution at his whim. So tell me, eLarson, Bachbone, LQ, Carol, anyone--if you are willing to throw away 40% of the Bill of Rights, how much farther are you willing to let the Bush administration go to protect us from terrorists?
If the Bush administration claimed that requiring newspapers, radio, and television outlets to get their news pre-approved by the government would help protect us from terrorists, would you be ok with that?
If the Bush adminsitration posited that banning private gun ownership would help protect us from terrorists, would you be ok with that?
If the Bush administration announced that rounding up all Americans of middle eastern descent and holding them in detention facilities would help protect us from terrorists, would you be ok with that?
If the Bush administration argued that indefinately postponing the 2008 Presidential election would help protect us from terrorists, would you be ok with that?
Rzafft wrote, "If the need is really so great and so clear, would it really have been so difficult to obtain a warrant?"
Remember, under the current law, enforcement agencies can get warrants from the FISA court up to three days after undertaking the surveillance. The law was crafted specifically to meet the special needs inherent in preventing external threats to the United States.
Post a Comment
<< Home