|
|
#1
02-10-2006, 09:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Democrats complain about “being kept in the dark...”
...about programs of national security (ie wire tapping & more). I just saw this on my local news, so I don’t have a link. My question is, Why wouldn’t you keep as many people in the dark as possible? It is obvious to me that people can’t keep their mouth shut, and that is not making us any safer. Why do the Democrats think that it is a winning strategy to put Americans in danger for their own political advances? Why would anyone vote for them after doing so? There are certain things that just should not be made public! To use a sports analogy: If you have a problem... work it out in the locker room, not in the press.
As I’ve mentioned before: I’m a political noob, so I’m prepared to be wrong here. It just doesn’t make sense to me. 
|
|
#2
02-10-2006, 09:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Democrats complain about “being kept in the dark...”
When it comes to issues of security, there are usually Constitutional issues involved. Those in the law enforcement community would prefer everyone be kept in the dark, but the 4th amendment curtails that ability.
Had all these surveillance efforts been carried out after the issue of a warrant, there would be no issue about Congress being informed, because the Constitution would have been satisfied. Now, the constitution allows that during wartime, the President may unilaterally authorize acts that are in violation the Bill of Rights. What is called into question here is whether or not the Iraq war fits in the constitutional definition of "wartime." Whether the powers of the presidency under the War Powers Act are identical to those under a congressional declaration of war is the crux of the debate in Congress. That's a complex question, and people can pick up that debate here at their leisure, but my question on this is more simple - why is it out of the question to seek judicial oversight for these surveillance activities? If it can be demostrated that seeking warrants jeopardizes this effort significantly more than it jeopradizes other serious criminal investigations, I'm inclined to give the government a pass on this. If not - no warrant, no surveillance.
|
|
#3
02-10-2006, 10:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Democrats complain about “being kept in the dark...”
[ QUOTE ]
...about programs of national security (ie wire tapping & more). I just saw this on my local news, so I don’t have a link. My question is, Why wouldn’t you keep as many people in the dark as possible? It is obvious to me that people can’t keep their mouth shut, and that is not making us any safer. Why do the Democrats think that it is a winning strategy to put Americans in danger for their own political advances? Why would anyone vote for them after doing so? There are certain things that just should not be made public! To use a sports analogy: If you have a problem... work it out in the locker room, not in the press. As I’ve mentioned before: I’m a political noob, so I’m prepared to be wrong here. It just doesn’t make sense to me. [/ QUOTE ] Read 'Our Man in Havanna' by Graham Greene (its pretty short and easy), a great satire of spy agencies who think they are so important.
|
|
#4
02-10-2006, 11:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Democrats complain about “being kept in the dark...”
[ QUOTE ]
"the constitution allows that during wartime, the President may unilaterally authorize acts that are in violation the Bill of Rights" [/ QUOTE ] The Constitution allows nothing of the sort. [ QUOTE ] What is called into question here is whether or not the Iraq war fits in the constitutional definition of "wartime." [/ QUOTE ] No, this is just the way some GOP pundits are probably spinning it, as Gonzalez's position regarding presidential power during any "war" is being accepted by no one. And I mean no one, not even Grover Norquist. As there is no dispute that Bush violated the express provisions of FISA, and indeed was apparently advised that he would be doing so, the only issue is whether Bush is not guilty of the felony provisions of FISA on the grounds that he thought he had more power than any Court has recognized.
|
|
#5
02-10-2006, 01:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Democrats complain about “being kept in the dark...”
"Why do the Democrats think that it is a winning strategy to put Americans in danger for their own political advances? Why would anyone vote for them after doing so?"
For the Dems to score points in the game as they have it currently defined, America must lose to it's enemies. Lucky for them there are plenty of America hating lefties that vote to keep them from total extinction. They are currently on the Endangered Species List in the great chunk of America 100 miles from an ocean. If you wish to rebut my position you must provide two current, forward going, likely, well-publicized Dem proposals that are not totally laughable. You likely can not.
|
|
#6
02-10-2006, 01:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Democrats complain about “being kept in the dark...”
I'd like for you to tell Howard Dean to his face that he hates America. He's a big guy, you'll end up with your legs flailing out the top of a garbage can.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
