Bush is a hypocrite
Bush is taking aim at the New York Times following their decision to publish the NSA article, "saying a newspaper jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11." Can anyone find a statement where Bush criticized Bob Novak for releasing Valerie Plame's name? Wasn't that also a threat to national security?
posted by mochi at 5:41 AM
11 Comments:
At least he's on the offensive. I have a huge problem with the Patriot Act, and this odd behavior by and allegedly strict contructionist president puzzles me. I would, however, like to see some hard data regarding how many attacks this clandestine behavior averted. It seems to me that avoiding attacks justifies much, although the government will likely be prohibited from prosecuting many of its targets in the event legal action is taken against would-be terrorists.
No.
-Jack
No what?
Perhaps he didn't criticize Plame's supposed outing because it had nothing to do with National Security.
My understanding regarding the NSA spying (I think it is closer to investigating than spying) is that only phone calls originating from "dirty" phone numbers overseas were tapped. That is, only calls originating from known or suspected terrorist links overseas were listened to.
Tell me how that's a bad thing?
Mochi asked: "Wasn't that also a threat to national security?"
I just said, "No"
:)
-Jack
Sean - "Tell me how that's a bad thing."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
It's as true today as ever.
Like all things, though, Shea, there has to be a balance. Franklin also noted the government in its purest form was force, and that it should be treated as such. This means that it should be used on things that require force--enemies foreign and domestic.
Of course, playing devil's advocate, how does one give up liberty by having their phone tapped?
-Jack
How does one receiving an international phone call from a terrorist have any reasonable expectation of privacy? Criminal conduct is not protected under our Constitution.
Take Franklin's quote to the extreme and the government isn't allowed to conduct any searches. Even a search under a warrant violates a person's liberties. We accept it because we feel it is in the best interests of an ordered society.
These wiretaps are strictly controlled and very specific in their criteria for setting one. Mainly, the call originates overseas from a terrorist.
Do we know these people calling from overseas are terrorists and that is all they are using this for? I would try and answer those questions first.
Jack - "Of course, playing devil's advocate, how does one give up liberty by having their phone tapped?"
I'm thinkin' fourth amendment.
Well CH, that's my understanding of the news reports. One end of the calls tapped were from overseas, the other was here in the U.S. The overseas calls were from "dirty" numbers. At this point I only have the press reports.
Shea, the 4th isn't applicable to every situation and search. In a nutshell, it applies when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are numerous exceptions to the 4th's requiremnet of a warrant.
Post a Comment
<< Home