It’s certainly viable, probably even more so since we’ve been drug into this tomfool war (didn’t a certain newspaper columnist refer to it that way once?), but that doesn’t mean we should give up our liberties for the sake of national security. We do have a system in place, and it’s a good one. The fact that there has only been one big attack should say something. I mean, it seems very improbable to me that this is the only big attack that has been planned. I don’t mean to write off the terrible deaths of 9/11 as a statistic, but, I mean, nothing’s perfect. Sometimes the bad guys win and all that. The best thing we can do is to go on living in our system and have faith that it’s not going to miss something like that for a very, very long time if ever. Giving up everything out of fear of what could happen is exactly how terrorists want us to react. It’s the goal of terrorism. It’s also how this administration wants us to react, because it can grab power pretty much at will. And then we get situations similiar (if more extreme) than we’re in now, absolute power corrupting absolutely and all that.
Okay, I’m rambling, so I’m going to end the post there. Hopefully some of it makes sense.
I can’t speak for Frosty, but I don’t. They shot their wad on 9/11, and because they didn’t cover their tracks, we were able to wrap up 99% of their operation in a couple of weeks. Don’t you think that with all the shit we’ve been stirring up in the Mid East that they’d try to blow something up to bring the “war home to America”? Instead, we haven’t even got so much as a pipe bomb. Face it, they’ve got nothing planned for us. We should be spending our energies on making sure that both Iraq and Afghanistan are stable countries and finding Osama. Not worrying about some mythological threat to America.
You are waaaaaay more likely to die in an auto accident than to be killed by terrorists. Maybe we should have mandatory 10 year prison terms for speeders and red light runners.
Of course the islamic terrorists are trying to hit the US again. But we can fight the terrorists and not violate the constitution at the same time.
Well, yes, actually I do. And just so you know, they are only monitoring calls going to or comming in from outside the US. (At leat that’s what he’s admitting to right now. I agree, he can be a little misleading. As I’ve said before I’m NOT a Bush fan. I just don’t feel like EVERYTHING he does is evil or wrong.)
It’s not like the President can be forthcomming with such descriptive details.
Well sure he could. He’s the President. It’s a time of war. He can do anything he damned well pleases.
When you say “they are only monitoring calls going to or comming in from outside the US.” remember that the only source we have for that information is the president and his minions. That’s the very same source that assured us that “a wiretap requires a court order.”
I do wonder. Didn’t the government just get a Report Card with a lot of F’s as far as Domestic Security is concerned? And the Bush Adminstration has had 4 years to fix this, with no real opposition other then a minority of spineless democrats.
That’s not even the issue. This provides absolutely no more investigative power than already existed, legally.
“Hey, if it’s important, start surveilling immediately! Just do the paperwork within a few days, m’kay? We have our priorities straight.”
The only added feature that skipping the whole application step provides is a total lack of oversight. How does this increase security? Are you worried that terrorists have moles that have infiltrated far enough into the government that this nominal check against abuse of power will tip the subjects off? If so, there are far more serious security issues to be addressed. If not, why is there any resistance? What’s the advantage, and at what cost?
Without any oversight, this sort of power can easily be wielded against personal and political enemies. It is freaking One Ring scenario – even if the people who are given that power are decent folks, that sort of thing tends to be corrupted in short order.
We won’t have to ask where our security was. We already know. George Bush sent them to the wrong country. In case you haven’t noticed, we’re losing the war on terrorism - terrorists are killing more people now than they did in 2001.
Think back to another dark period when our nation was facing a crisis - the Civil War. McClellan was a highly regarded general, he was considered a military genius, he was popular with the troops, he had great political connections, and he had more soldiers and guns than the enemy did - but he couldn’t win battles. So Lincoln made the tough decision - he fired McClellan and replaced him with a general who could win battles.
This is where we are now. It’s time to admit things are not working. Bush has had his chance and shown he doesn’t have what it takes to beat terrorism. We need to send him home and replace him with somebody else.
Yep. The GAO gave Homeland Security a “F” for not securing ports more thoroughly, for not securing major raillines and pipelines, and for focusing too much on air travel. And gave the DoD a “F” for being wasteful with regards to munitions expendatures in training (what, do you fuckers want us to REUSE the bullets we shoot?) But, this is also the same GAO that gave itself a “F” for throwing away funds hand over fist. Frankly, I trust Bush more than I trust the GAO.
So, are you calling for the installment of a President who’s sole aim in life is the defeat of the concept of terrorism and the defence of the USA? I doubt that you are, but it can be read as such.
But, if you want historical refrences, please look back to yet another sad chapter in America’s history, the Great Depression. A large percentage of FDR’s programs were enacted by Presidental order, against the wishes of Congress, were unsuccessful, and in the end struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Same as today. Only difference, FDR came off as rather grandfatherly, not a buffoon. We don’t need a new President. We need a new Cabinet which isn’t full of sycophants (someone, please correct my spelling.) Keep Condi, but dump the rest!
Of course, they’re shutting down the Commission on Dec. 31st, so they can’t be too concerned about it.
[Jon Stewart] Oh my God! We’re all going to die! I don’t want to die! [/JS]
The other fact to consider, is that the government had all the information needed to figure the attacks on 9/11 before they happened. The problem was not in information gathering, but in putting it together.
The pattern for this administration has been one of repeated abuses of power. As pointed out, they could probably have gotten FISA warrants for the wiretaps (which can be done retroactively; there’s also an appeals court if FISA says no, and, if I recall, another level of appeal after that). But they chose not to, which implies either that the subjects of the wiretaps really were inappropriate, or that the Bush White House is so arrogant in their power that they decided to simply ignore the legal checks on their actions.
Last Sunday on “Meet the Press”, you had Cokie Roberts, Sam Donaldson and George Will all strongly agreeing on this. Possible sign of the apocalypse, and definitely a sign that Bush has crossed a line this time.
