WASHINGTON — A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved, according to a person with knowledge of the opinion.
now we expect every left wing sympathizer who was screaming that bush was breaking the law to demand that the messiah destroy this law that protects americans…
I hope Obama and his cabinet thinks long and hard about decisions that affects national security. Terrorists don’t mind using underhanded tactics to wreak havoc.
I see dead arguments only given animation by your repeated kicking of their corpse.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by this, but to me, the nature of terrorism is defined by the tactics that they use and to stand against terrorism is to disavow the use of such tactics or you just become another terror.
Ron Paul quoted one of the founding fathers as saying, “When you sacrifice liberty for safety, you get neither.”
I used to think that was profound, but it has to be taken into consideration that the world is a much different place than it was in 1776. If listening to peoples’ private conversations means saving the lives of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, there is no ethical question about it: it needs to be done.
Just ask the family and friends of those who died on 9/11. I’d bet they’d agree.
The problem though is the complete inability to date to do anything other than what should be considered emergency actions. When a nation as a whole refuses to engage in diplomacy (Obama criticized for expressing a desire to hold diplomatic talks with Iran???) while at the same time liberally making use of emergency wartime measures - something is seriously out of whack. That is not democracy in the way we think of it. It’s more akin to a perpetual declaration of emergency and it’s profoundly scary.
Anon, the U.S. did try to. Iran will not move past the point of Israel’s demise. They won’t try to see reason where they are concerned because of their belief system. Iran just can’t see Israel existing.
Diplomacy under Bush has proved a massive failure. Even most republicans admit that. Come on, how hard do we really try? Diplomacy and openminded discussion could be the main thrust of foreign policy. There is no evidence that it is typically much more than a series of veiled threats.
I think Dorky captures it pretty well. If someone passively surveils my correspondence, I have lost no liberty, and others have gained secutiry. I don’t know that I have freedom from other people knowing what I think and say, as long as they aren’t torturing me to find it or prosecuting me for things that are within my rights to think and say. If I can be surveilled in such a way that it doesn’t affect anyone who isn’t doing anything wrong, then what’s wrong with surveillance?
Anon, you didn’t address the Israeli issue. That is why the U.S. won’t continue diplomatic talks with Iran because they don’t recognize them a sovereign nation. When Obama takes over the presidency, he may pursue this situation again, but I doubt with success.
The U.S. has talked to Iran, but they still want to be rid of Israel. Israel is an ally of the U.S. and the government won’t stand for the destruction of an ally when another nation won’t change their minds about it. When Iran gets off of their wanting to destroy Israel, then I’m sure talks will resume.