steve2881 said:
Regardless of what the democrats think, they are on the wrong side of this issue as usual. They are coming off as being more concerned with the civil rights of someone talking to known terrorist associates than the safety of Americans!!! I know they feel like they are doing themselves a favor by bashing Bush on this issue, but the are actually helping future republicans.
You cannot say that you are all for the protection of Americans and at the same time do everything you can in your power to hinder the programs to do just that.
The majority of Americans are smart enough to know that the government doesn't care about jack calling jim to see if he wants to bar b q this weekend.
IN SIMPLISTIC TERMS; HE IS TRYING TO PROTECT AMERICANS AND THE PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY NOT CONCERNED WITH THE WAY HE GOES ABOUT IT. HE HAS A WIDE RANGE OF DISCRETION, WE ARE AT WAR!!!
Ok, I think this pretty much sums up the extent of the conservative complaint with this issue. It's short-sighted, it's ignorant, and it's wrong. In fact, almost everything about this post is just plain wrong, and it's important that this be pointed out. Yet another instance of conservatives getting frustrated and accusing democrats of helping the enemy, being unpatriotic, with us or against us - and it's complete and total BS.
I'll pick it apart, statement by statement, to illustrate.
1. First you say that no matter what democrats think about this, we are on the wrong side of the issue, as usual. This undermines anything else you are going to type after as being totally biased, wrong, and exclusionary. No matter what we think about this, we are wrong. Would it be fair, or right, for me to say this about you, no matter what you think? Bingo.
Also in this paragraph you say we are more concerned with the civil rights of known terrorists than the safety of Americans. Here is the important part of this...if they are known terrorists, then why can't a warrant be obtained? Simple question, always answered with the current FISA and legal recourses already afforded this administration. How many such warrants have ever been denied in our history? 4? 5? How many judges would not allow surveillance of a known terrorist in our current world? I'd guess ZERO. The fact is - for whatever reason - this administration does not feel like it has to follow the law. THAT is the issue here. Courts have ruled this to be the right way to do things. This has already been challenged. And the administration doesn't follow the law. You don't know why they don't. Neither do I. And that's the issue.
2. You say "we" are hindering the programs. This is an absolute falsehood. "We" are merely asking the rule of law be followed, and it's a reasonable one at that. IF - I repeat IF - this administration is ordering surveillance of only known terrorists or associates of Al Qaida, and that is the current line from them, then they should have absolutely no trouble getting a warrant. Even after the fact, so there is no time delay - NONE. You have a hot lead, follow it. No delay. No paperwork to make it happen. Just do it - like you're doing now - and do the legal followup afterwards. And there are no problems.
Maybe, just maybe, they are not only surveilling these people. Because if they were, we would probably have no real issue here anyway, because they should have no problem following the law. "We" are merely asking our elected officials and the people the appoint to follow the law - especially one that is so lenient and helpful to achieving their goals of protecting us. This just does not wash. We are not hindering a damn thing. We are asking the current law to be followed. If you don't like the law, then change it. You even have the damn majority to make it happen, if it's such a negative law to protecting Americans. Oh, wait...your own justice department appointees already said that it's probably not the right thing to do and the law works the way it is. So, I guess that doesn't work either. So, I guess you can just ignore it and hide what you are doing - which is breaking the law.
YOUR ALL CAPITALIZED PARAGRAPH...is off point as well. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS DOING, OR WHY, IN ALL CASES, BECAUSE THERE IS NO RECORD OF IT. YES, THEY ARE TRYING TO PROTECT AMERICANS, AND THE SETUP IS ALREADY IN PLACE TO HELP THAT HAPPEN. THE ONLY WAY IT WON'T IS IF THE REQUEST FOR WARRANT IS IN THE MINISCULE % OF REQUESTS THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROVED. AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHY THOSE WOULD NOT BE APPROVED BECAUSE WE DON'T HEAR ABOUT IT. YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOR POLITICAL REASONS. BECAUSE THE PERSON IS NOT A KNOWN TERRORIST. BECAUSE THE JUDGE DOESN'T BELIEVE THEM OR THE FACTS THEY PRODUCE. - YOU DON'T KNOW WHY, AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM. YOU SHOULD KNOW WHY. AND TO NOT DEMAND SOME CHECKS TO ANY ADMINISTRATION AT ALL IS JUST PLAIN STUPID AND UN-AMERICAN.
I'm sick and tired of the way this issue is being mis-represented by the supporters of the Bush administration. You can probably tell that from my tirade. But instead of this being looked at fairly, openly and honestly, it's being misrepresented and glossed over by those who suck at the teat of George Dubba Bush.
I'll argue it eternally. Because it's important, and it is a big damn deal.
