“This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.”
--President George W. Bush, December 17, 2005
6 comments:
Actually, how about this Spitfire? Let's suspend the Constitution all together and let's approve what the media can print. Yeah, that's a great idea. . . LOL at you.
You should read your Orwell buddy. This shit is messed up.
You're right. Sedition is messed up. So is revealing secrets to our enemies in the pages of the New York Times. You can laugh at me all you want. Laughter sure is better than another terrorist attack on NYC. (You remember the last one, right?) As for reading Orwell, I think you're clearly out of your depth both in regards to him, history in general, and the War Powers Act in particular, which means that the NSA tapping phone calls made to INTERNATIONAL destinations is well within their legal right to do so. I also would welcome how you lefties intend on winning this war against Islamo-terrorism. If you can't answer this simple question, you have no intellectual standing when it comes to issues such as this.
Additionally, the media has no constitutional right to publish stories that compromise national security or the lives of American citizens. Feel free to cite the constitutional amendment that states that the New York Times has a constitutional right to compromise national security to sell papers and undermine a president they loathe.
Grow up.
Me grow up? I did grow up, when MY Fourth Amendment rights were most likely violated without probable cause. As for your statement that I am out of my depth. It's laughable. I'd say my law degree, my graduate study of jurisprudence, my ability to speak Arabic and my vast travel in this country, the world and the Middle East in particular give me some insight. But you keep reading the National Review and defending this creep and yeah don't worry about me laughing at you -- worry about history sneering at you. You'd have probably defended the Japanese internment camps in WWII. . . Not LOL, now I'm just sad for you. Your apathy towards MY fundamental Constitutional rights makes you a dangerous person. Barbarians at the gate indeed!
Go google the name "Iyman Faris". Then get back to me about probable cause. (LOL?) I guess you'd rather have seen the Brooklyn Bridge destroyed (and the lives that would've been destroyed with it) than to see his lines tapped when he made international phone calls to his terrorist braintrust overseas. Law degree aside, tell me about why there were no acts of sabotage perpetrated by the Germans during WWII. Any thoughts? How was it that no acts of sabotage were successfully carried out within the United States proper during the Cold War? Know why? I can give you some clue: wiretaps. We're in a state of war right now, and it is incumbent upon POTUS to protect the lives of the people of this country. If you have any other suggestions in how to successfully wage a war on terrorism, feel free. And if those of your leftist ilk want to take this fight to the electorate, I can virtually guarantee that the mid-term elections next year will be yet another disappointment for the party of defeat (i.e. the party formerly known as the Democratic Party).
I wouldn't have defended Japanese internment camps during WWII; would you have? After all, it was Franklin Roosevelt, against the expressed advice of J. Edgar Hoover, who put them there. Not only that, but it was Roosevelt's Supreme Court, all seven of his appointments, who upheld the legality of the Japanese internment camps. So don't pin latter-day liberal racism on me. As for your legal background, I suggest you peer at the latest post regarding the legality of wiretaps in time of war. Also, stop making emotional arguments. You're coming off like a hysteric.
Post a Comment