Quoting Alexander Hamilton’s statement that the power to protect the nation “ought to exist without limitation,” former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo vigorously defended warrantless wiretapping in a Wall Street Journal commentary, taking on last week’s critical report by the inspectors general of five national security agencies: “Gathering intelligence — including intercepting enemy communications — has long been a key aspect of war. Our military and intelligence agencies cannot attack or defend the nation unless they know where to aim. As we confront terrorists who remain intent on attacking the U.S., using weapons we cannot anticipate, we should be skeptical of those who insist that we radically change the way this country has always made war.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- thomaswitt on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- Phantom on Let immigrants run
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
40 Comments
Wow, I’m guessing Alexander Hamilton was one of those guys who thought the idea of a King with absolute power was a great idea.
Thankfully his view was in the minority and a different legal precedent was set which makes the Bush regime a criminal organization.
In a nutshell, do we want to be safe or sorry?
“In a nutshell, do we want to be safe or sorry?”
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I want to be America — a land of laws, a land of personal freedoms — ya know the America the Constitution talks about. The bush regime didn’t keep me safer, it made the world a more dangerous place.
You can go on thinking it’s a choice of safe or sorry, but I will never again bow to the politics of fear! I am an American!
Only the paranoid drug user or perhaps someone with something to hide would be worried about surveillance on terrorists.
Watching a recorded hearing of the Homeland security this morning some of the talk leaned toward something I was concerned about. The attack of 9-11 was not brain surgery, it actually would have only took a minutes observation of how this country is/was to see how to perform the attack.
Perhaps the most shaking thing about it was they used some of this country’s greatest strengths as a weakness. Our freedoms and our basic beliefs as a way to commit it. We did not have intuitional suspect of those who are a different color, religion or Nation of origin. Freedom of travel and not a Police state where everyone has to have the proper papers and be subject to inspection at any minute.
The first time I read Orwell’s “1984” I saw where there was some sense in the concept of a Police state.
Crime would almost be non-existent, there would be a great deal of without a doubt in criminal cases.
Order and freedom of fear from the everyday concerns of crime.
But then Ben Franklin put it all in prospective, those willing to sacrifice some freedom for some security deserve neither freedom or security. It can hardly be said that the people of this country in Franklin’s day
where facing any less a threat then we do today.
The talk of the hearing reflected more having everyone within the United States being a suspect then to ensure that we maintain what is our greatest strengths.
Obama needs unfettered authority to do whatever he needs to protect us from RW terrorist!
Only the paranoid drug user or perhaps someone with something to hide would be worried about surveillance on terrorists.
——————————
Painting with a pretty broad brush arent you? Iam am neither of the cases you stated but what I do or sy in the privacy of my home is none of the governments damn business. Do you have wet dreams of Orwell’s book becoming reality?
Obama needs unfettered authority to do whatever he needs to protect us from RW terrorist!
——————————————–
What about the ones on the left?
They’re cool.
That’s what Bush called it, gathering intelligence? What he gathered was stupidity and then did his best to shut up anyone with intelligence! The mission he accomplished was to start an unnecessary war, get thousands of our people killed as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, destroy our national credibility and honor, and ruin our economy for years to come. He invested billions of our tax dollars on systems that could transcribe and classify Aunt Millie’s chocolate cheesecake recipe, yet couldn’t manage locate a 6′4″ Saudi dragging a dialysis machine across the desert. He declared war, not on terrorism or even the democrats, but on the voices of reason within his own party- and won!
But then Ben Franklin put it all in prospective, those willing to sacrifice some freedom for some security deserve neither freedom or security.
—————————–
Franklin never wrote that – he wrote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
And, it had nothing to do with being under surveillance or spied on.
What it was in regards to was that some Colonists complying with the wishes of the Crown so they would not be harmed. In other words, side with the British temporarily during the War of the Revolution.
These people were called Loyalists, who, instead of striving for an independent country, remained loyal to the Crown or from lack of spine or self-serving interest chose to side with the Crown for protection.
It had nothing to do with surveillance of any kind.
One could better translate it as, One might get temporary protection, but in turn will exchange their liberty for false allegiance.
Franklin was addressing that Colonists needed to be Patriots, not cowering subjects bowing to the whim of the King.
Reggie,
Maybe you’ll remember how J. Edgar wiretapped Martin Luther King and put him under surveillance in an ongoing attempt to discredit the civil rights movement. Maybe you’ll also remember the black-bag job on Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in an equally misguided attempt to discredit and supress the Pentagon Papers.
Maybe you’ll remember the wiretapping of the Democratic National Headquarters at Watergate.
None of those had anything to do with national security and everything to do with politics. As a f’rinstance, are you willing to give the Obama administration the right to wiretap it’s republican opponents? Hey, what’s good for the goose…..
But then Ben Franklin put it all in prospective, those willing to sacrifice some freedom for some security deserve neither freedom or security.
—————————–
Franklin never wrote that – he wrote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. [Regular]
_______________________
My my… nit picky today, eh???
Is freedom not also Liberty??
Is Safety not also security?
How does one justify being a conservative( and claim to support small gov, lower taxes ect..) with support of widespread government intrusion into peoples lives?
Jed, if O’BAMA thinks there are terrorists running rampant through the Republican National Party, then by all means he should put them under surveillance.
Otherwise, comparing the loose cannon Hoover to anyone is irrelevant.
“Regular
Posted July 18, 2009 at 2:39 pm | Permalink
Jed, if O’BAMA thinks there are terrorists”
The trick, which the government has failed to adequately do so far, is defining exactly and publicly what the definition of a terrorist is.
#
Chas
Posted July 18, 2009 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
But then Ben Franklin put it all in prospective, those willing to sacrifice some freedom for some security deserve neither freedom or security.
—————————–
Franklin never wrote that – he wrote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. [Regular]
_______________________
My my… nit picky today, eh???
Is freedom not also Liberty??
Is Safety not also security?
———————————–
The word difference don’t matter so much as the context in which they were referred.
Obviously, there was no electronic surveillance in the 18th century nor was there a concern about warrant-less wiretaps.
The concern Franklin mentioned in his statement was addressed to those who would side with the King of England for temporary safety (not to be attacked or have their property confiscated by the British.)
#
brian_nuevo
Posted July 18, 2009 at 2:43 pm | Permalink
“Regular
Posted July 18, 2009 at 2:39 pm | Permalink
Jed, if O’BAMA thinks there are terrorists”
The trick, which the government has failed to adequately do so far, is defining exactly and publicly what the definition of a terrorist is.
———————————
The debate in your mind about the definition of a terrorist will be over when your loved one’s limbs are blown asunder.
I should add by a high explosive. No doubt MonkeyHock, mr. guttermind will comment.
“Regular
Posted July 18, 2009 at 2:49 pm | Permalink
…The debate in your mind about the definition of a terrorist will be over when your loved one’s limbs are blown asunder.”
Unfortunately that is about the same definition the government provides. I want to know proactively who we should be targeting before it happens.
#
brian_nuevo
Posted July 18, 2009 at 2:52 pm | Permalink
“Regular
Posted July 18, 2009 at 2:49 pm | Permalink
…The debate in your mind about the definition of a terrorist will be over when your loved one’s limbs are blown asunder.”
Unfortunately that is about the same definition the government provides. I want to know proactively who we should be targeting before it happens.
——————————
That’s the business of people who spend a lifetime study such things.
We can speculate and they can speculate all they want. As it has been said, “we have to be right ALL the time, and the terrorist(s) only have to be
right ONCE.”
So what do you propose if you are implying we can’t determine who the terrorists are before they committ an act of terrorism?
#
brian_nuevo
Posted July 18, 2009 at 3:47 pm | Permalink
So what do you propose if you are implying we can’t determine who the terrorists are before they committ an act of terrorism?
————————–
Having troubles thinking for yourself?
I don’t set national security policy.
It is not a matter of deciding for myself who the terrorists are… I want to know the government’s definition of who the ‘terrorists’ are.
Reggie,
“The debate in your mind about the definition of a terrorist will be over when your loved one’s limbs are blown asunder.”
Well, a friend of mine was shot in the face in church last month by a christian terrorist, does that count?
“Wow, I’m guessing Alexander Hamilton was one of those guys who thought the idea of a King with absolute power was a great idea.” (MP)
___________
Gee, what a student a history, you’re just now figuring that out about Hamilton??? John Adams, Johh Jay, and the rest of the leaders of the Federalists all thought the same way! It’s why Madison bailed on them after helping write the Federalist Papers, because he saw how they wanted to duplicate the British style of rule. It was the complete basis of the entire debate around the Constitution between the Federalists (Hamilton/Adams) & the Anti-Federalists (Jefferson/Madison).
“Jed
Posted July 18, 2009 at 4:42 pm | Permalink
Reggie,
“The debate in your mind about the definition of a terrorist will be over when your loved one’s limbs are blown asunder.”
Well, a friend of mine was shot in the face in church last month by a christian terrorist, does that count?”
I guess you now know who the terrorists are…
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
And, it had nothing to do with being under surveillance or spied on.
Actually Regular it has everything to do with it, you have fourth and fifth amendment rights to prevent the Government from unwarranted spying upon the citizens of the Untied States. you have the liberties of the government not spying upon you. Does your not objecting to the violations of your rights and liberties make you a loyalist?
Just how many terrorists do you think there are in the United States? A hundred thousand or two hundred thousand? Maybe a million? How many terrorists would there have to be in the United States to warrant the suspension of your Constitution rights? To have justify that and the suspension of your privilege of a speedy trial and legal representation. To be clear Regular this does pertain to you as well as any foreign terrorists within the United States. They did not make a distinction in this, you as an American citizen under the expansive reach of the Bush terrorism program. Lost your right to a fair and speedy trial and to legal council. You lost your right to the privacy within your communications and papers.
Mike Hayden went before the Congress and demanded that you should not be separate from Bin Laden when it comes to your phone calls, e-mails and other means of transfer of information. Farther that your home should not be safe from unwarranted searches by Government authorities and that there be no requirement that you be notified of such searches afterwards. No search warrant need to be obtained or shown before, during or after such searches.
This is meaningless as it goes, nothing will be done about it and no one will be held accountable for these actions. So why is this all important then? Simply the saying about the Camel’s nose under the bottom of the tent. Are you familiar with the saying? Since there was no just cause shown for the above actions. What then will be the next excuse given?
yes Jed, I think the nut that shot Tiller was a domestic terrorist.
Nice spin Dog, but the Constitution wasn’t written when Franklin wrote that and as I explained, the context of the true meaning Franklin wrote has nothing to do with surveillance.
I have to differ with you Regular on the practical meaning of the word, terrorist. I don’t think Tiller’s killer was a terrorist. A terrorist uses acts of violence against innocents to advance their cause, whatever it is. This was not the case in Tiller’s murder. The guy hated Tiller himself. His cause had no other end than to take him out.
I see your point outlander, but don’t you think he was trying to advance his cause?
He allegedly called for more attacks on abortion providers from prison. That sounds like he was sharing his ideology or should I say hoping his ideology would take hold and his wishes fulfilled.
That’s precisely how Al Qaeda works, except they hide behind Islam as their ideological justification.
He might be prosecuted for murder, but I think the act was terroristic in nature, because of the way he stalked, planned and lived a fanatical lifestyle all for the purpose of stopping permanently that that wasn’t his ideology.
A mad husband could have shot Tiller in the same manner and I would call that just domestic murder.
The difference is that there was no ideological font being impressed to chapter out the final scene.
I understand what you are saying Reg, but I think this is more analogous to a political murder than a terrorist act. Something along the lines of Booth’s murder of Lincoln, or the assassination Egyptian President Sadat.
The interesting point about this debate is that there is no NEED for warrantless wiretapping. The law allows for “after-the-fact” warrants in emergency cases and the secret panel of judges that approves the warrants has only declined in two cases in history.
There was no NEED to break the law, unless of course, the Bush Administration was wiretapping people that were not a true threat.
#
outlander
Posted July 18, 2009 at 7:54 pm | Permalink
I understand what you are saying Reg, but I think this is more analogous to a political murder than a terrorist act. Something along the lines of Booth’s murder of Lincoln, or the assassination Egyptian President Sadat.
——————————–
I respectfully disagree.
Roeder had a lifelong obsession with all things relating to abortion. It was a focused ideology.
ideology – the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
Although, it could be a hybrid of politics and ideology.
With an obsession like Roeder had, living the ‘hate’ predisposed him into a anti-abortion ideology.
But great minds can differ. :)
“…we should be skeptical of those who insist that we radically change the way this country has always made war.”
Such as, for example, people who insist on literal interpretations of phraseology like “War on Terror”, rather than Constitutionally defined specifications like the powers of Congress to “…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water…”
Obviously, there was no electronic surveillance in the 18th century nor was there a concern about warrant-less wiretaps.
The concern Franklin mentioned in his statement was addressed to those who would side with the King of England for temporary safety (not to be attacked or have their property confiscated by the British.)
[Regular]
Obviously, it wasnt spoken/written aabout warrant-less wiretaps… BUT, one must remember that there were many insider spies on both the Brit side, and the Colonist side… There were those who would give up there freedom for safety…. We ALL know that…. SO, the statement IS relevant to the issue of government intervention into private lives….
Remember the Thid Amendment, and WHY the founders wanted it…
“Chas” –
I’m sure “Regular” isn’t worried about having his 3rd Amendment right infringed.
Even if we sent the 3rd Infantry over to his kitchen for lunch, all “Regular” thinks he’d need is five loaves and a couple of fish.
Monkey — LOL
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 19, 2009 at 7:30 am | Permalink
“Chas” –
I’m sure “Regular” isn’t worried about having his 3rd Amendment right infringed.
Even if we sent the 3rd Infantry over to his kitchen for lunch, all “Regular” thinks he’d need is five loaves and a couple of fish.
———————-
Maybe not the 3rd Infantry, but the 1st Infantry – you are not knowing your Kansas history about the Big Red One – The First Infantry
I have nothing to hide from the government, so have nothing to fear from the government.
Paranoia-driven fears like the Libs and some others have is unwarranted (pun intended.)