Thursday, December 22, 2005

NYT Lights Bag of Dog Poo; Steps In It

Tired and I have a headache, but thought Nunzia would get a kick out me saying it again. If you're one who's been following my comments on the NSA wiretapping matter, I started out withholding my opinion, as I am deadset against invasion of individual rights, although storngly pro-defense. I wanted to see where this all went, because something smelled fishy, but my first knee-jerk inclination is to distrust the government.

I still don't trust the government. I also don't trust the New York Times, since they are notoriously unreliable these days. Anyway, I remain unconvinced of any wrongdoing on the part of the Bush Administration, but wonder why no one from the NYT has yet been sent to jail. I am Jack's indifference.

Here's a few interesting things in addition to the previous post:

1) N.Y. Times, Get Your N.S.A. Stories Straight
2) Chicago Tribune: President had legal authority to OK taps
3) Powerline: On the Legality of the NSA Electronic Intercept Program

So that's about all I have to say about that. Some may be concerned that the government even has these powers. Let me know in comments and I'll respond later; I haven't got time to state my argument at the moment


Blogger James Manning bloody well said...

I come down on the side of being against the government having these powers, but I do recognize that they need them in "some" cases. My opinion on this is that Bush had legal means to do what he did but he chose not to. I'd like to know why. I suspect it is because the neo-cons believe the Oval Office should be more powerful than what it is and is pushing the envelope to prove a philosophical point rather than carry out a counter-terrorist meneuver.

22 December, 2005 19:40  
Blogger shoprat bloody well said...

My only concern is that whatever we allow Bush to do we wind up having to allow the others to do it as well. I would never trust Madam Hillary with this power; she would abuse it horribly and the press would give her a pass on it.

22 December, 2005 21:02  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden bloody well said...

12 22 05

Hey RB: I give you a hat tip on the current post! I am never one to deny wrongness, come by to see what I mean;)

23 December, 2005 04:53  
Blogger Robosquirrel bloody well said...

James: I'm still at a loss to find which part of what has been disclosed this far is illegal. I must be missing it, perhaps you can link me to some good info? Everything I have read so far has indicated that there are compelling arguments either way, but this is likely Constitutional.

Is probable cause not a factor here? I guess FISA says the court has up to 72 hours to approve a warrant, but that may not be fast enough if we are to be able to gain the information necessary to prevent attack. I would think that probable cause would come into play, but maybe not in the case of foreign intelligence.

The neo-con theory is interesting, but what good does expanding executive powers do them when their guy is no longer in office? Are they that short-sighted? I think playing politics to prove philosophical points is foolhardy - something that might happen on TV, but not real life. What makes you think that's what is going on?

23 December, 2005 19:44  
Blogger Robosquirrel bloody well said...

Mahndisa: I'm glad I was able to show you something new, but there's no need for all that. Thanks just the same, I enjoy our conversations!

23 December, 2005 19:46  
Blogger Nunzia bloody well said...

you just HAD to say it again, didn't you? :)

09 February, 2006 22:31  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home