Morality is not determined by the church you attend nor the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey
Interesting. I tend to blame treachery (such as malicious leaks and telling lies about one's employers) on the ones actually doing the leaking and the lying. I also tend to regard it as reprehensible behavior, no matter which political party it's aimed at hurting.
Although, since the latest Rasmussen poll indicates overwhelming popular support for the wiretaps, either Karl Rove truly is a Sith Master or the left has had another 'work accident.'
You say "Could the illegal wiretaps jeopardize the case against terrorists?"
But, for Pete's sake, there wouldn't BE any "case against terrorists" in the first place if it weren't for what you call the "illegal" wiretaps. Those wiretaps are how we FOUND the terrorists, BEFORE they were able to commit terrorism!
Look, how can I explain this to you? Criminal prosecutions start with a crime. The police track leads, identify a suspect, get a wiretap order, collect proof, then charge the suspect.
Terrorism is different. We don't *WANT* the police "identifying suspects" AFTER they've committed their crime -- i.e., killed thousands of people. We want them to go out and PREVENT the crime from taking place. It's a war. If a fleet of bombers was on its way to wipe Anchorage off the face of the Earth, do you want:
a) The Air Force to intercept the bombers and exterminate them with extreme prejudice, or b) Wait until the bombing has taken place, then track leads and file charges against the perpetrators?
OK, so now, back to the NSA. "Suspects" don't just magically appear in law enforcement dossiers. And since we don't want to wait for the crime (i.e., again, the deaths of thousands) to occur, that means we have to try to proactively identify suspects *before* the crime. That, in a nutshell, appears to be what the NSA was doing -- sifting through millions of bits of data, looking for patterns that indicate something that needed to be investigated. I humbly submit to you that, once it is explained to them that way, most Americans would have no problems with that.
- AJ
PS Now, the *leaks* are another matter entirely, and believe me, I could go on and on about unelected officials and media members unilaterally deciding they know what's best, even if it compromises national security. There have been about six such incidents in the last year, and that should really worry people. Let the prosecutions begin!
Perhaps you could define what "illegal" means to you?
Also, you say the White House has leaks. Are you suggesting that the leak came from the White House? That seems doubtful to me. It is much more likely that it came from a Bush hater in the NSA or the office of one of the Democratic Congressmen informed of the wiretaps by the President.
Now if there was sufficient reason to wiretap the suspect who are accused of plottng the bombing of the bridge then there would be no problem in getting a court order to obtain said wiretap. Right?
And if that did indeed happen then the lawyers for these guys will have no leg to stand on. Justice wins and the bad guys go to jail.
We have regulated airspace to protect us from bombers attacking us from the air. And if they were confronted and did not turn around I would have no problem with shooting them out of the skies.
If these wiretaps were on individuals that posed a threat to our country then I am 100% behind them getting tracked while they are in this country. We do the same thing to drug dealers and other bad guys. But if it is not done "legally" we will have a hell of a time putting them on trial. Wouldn't it suck if they got off?
Yeah Blogagog I am suggesting that the White House has leaks. Look at my "Goddamn piece of paper" post.
Interesting. I tend to blame treachery (such as malicious leaks and telling lies about one's employers) on the ones actually doing the leaking and the lying. I also tend to regard it as reprehensible behavior, no matter which political party it's aimed at hurting.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, since the latest Rasmussen poll indicates
overwhelming popular support for the wiretaps, either Karl Rove truly is a Sith Master or the left has had another 'work accident.'
Oh brother, this is getting thick.
ReplyDeleteYou say "Could the illegal wiretaps jeopardize the case against terrorists?"
But, for Pete's sake, there wouldn't BE any "case against terrorists" in the first place if it weren't for what you call the "illegal" wiretaps. Those wiretaps are how we FOUND the terrorists, BEFORE they were able to commit terrorism!
Look, how can I explain this to you? Criminal prosecutions start with a crime. The police track leads, identify a suspect, get a wiretap order, collect proof, then charge the suspect.
Terrorism is different. We don't *WANT* the police "identifying suspects" AFTER they've committed their crime -- i.e., killed thousands of people. We want them to go out and PREVENT the crime from taking place. It's a war. If a fleet of bombers was on its way to wipe Anchorage off the face of the Earth, do you want:
a) The Air Force to intercept the bombers and exterminate them with extreme prejudice, or
b) Wait until the bombing has taken place, then track leads and file charges against the perpetrators?
OK, so now, back to the NSA. "Suspects" don't just magically appear in law enforcement dossiers. And since we don't want to wait for the crime (i.e., again, the deaths of thousands) to occur, that means we have to try to proactively identify suspects *before* the crime. That, in a nutshell, appears to be what the NSA was doing -- sifting through millions of bits of data, looking for patterns that indicate something that needed to be investigated. I humbly submit to you that, once it is explained to them that way, most Americans would have no problems with that.
- AJ
PS Now, the *leaks* are another matter entirely, and believe me, I could go on and on about unelected officials and media members unilaterally deciding they know what's best, even if it compromises national security. There have been about six such incidents in the last year, and that should really worry people. Let the prosecutions begin!
Perhaps you could define what "illegal" means to you?
ReplyDeleteAlso, you say the White House has leaks. Are you suggesting that the leak came from the White House? That seems doubtful to me. It is much more likely that it came from a Bush hater in the NSA or the office of one of the Democratic Congressmen informed of the wiretaps by the President.
Hey Jack how are you doing buddy?
ReplyDeleteI do indeed get "it"!
Now if there was sufficient reason to wiretap the suspect who are accused of plottng the bombing of the bridge then there would be no problem in getting a court order to obtain said wiretap. Right?
And if that did indeed happen then the lawyers for these guys will have no leg to stand on. Justice wins and the bad guys go to jail.
We have regulated airspace to protect us from bombers attacking us from the air. And if they were confronted and did not turn around I would have no problem with shooting them out of the skies.
If these wiretaps were on individuals that posed a threat to our country then I am 100% behind them getting tracked while they are in this country. We do the same thing to drug dealers and other bad guys. But if it is not done "legally" we will have a hell of a time putting them on trial. Wouldn't it suck if they got off?
Yeah Blogagog I am suggesting that the White House has leaks. Look at my "Goddamn piece of paper" post.
give em Hell gryphen....
ReplyDelete( I will send them hankies when the Impeachment Bus takes the lot off to Gitmo....)