Monday, January 30, 2006

Regarding NSA Wiretaps

I've been meaning to make this point for a while and am just not having time to get to it.

Read this FoxNews story on the NSA wiretap debate. Read the whole thing and then come back here.

Now if all you do is listen to the network news and read the New York Times then all you would hear is that the NSA is spying on Americans. That's all you would know, that and the fact that Bush authorized it.

But whether the warrantless wiretaps are legal is a debate worth having. However the fact that the program undergoes a legal review every 45 days, or that Congress was informed of the program from the beginning do not keep the likes of Teddy Kennedy from blovilating on how many laws Bush is breaking, or how illegal the program is.

The key point that was hit on in this article:
"If ... you are not targeting the person in the United States, you get the conversations, you are perfectly free to use those, that information provide it to other government agencies, if you want," said Bryan Cunningham, a former official with the Bush National Security Council.
That's where I stand on this issue. If an American becomes the target of an investigation through these wiretaps then a warrant needs to be procured.

The sad part is that some of the Democrats agree with me. But that doesn't stop them from acting like idiots. They are looking to score political points by bashing Bush. This has been the norm for so long that it seems to be their only MO(probably because Bush keeps winning elections).

If you listen closely you will hear them say things like "I think we should use every means available to stop terrorists, but this goes too far". Want me to translate that for you? That means that it's probably legal to do, but how dare Chimpy actually do it!

Indeed the New York Times(policy megaphone for the Democrats) when Clinton was President call this domestic surveillance "a necessity". But the Dems use the fact that the NSA kept the program under wraps for so long as evidence that a crime was committed. Nevermind the idea that such a program SHOULD be kept secret from the people it was intended to combat. Think about this, if this program had been in place we might have caught the phone call from Osama to a relative in the US saying he would have to go underground for a while because "something big was going to happen". And that phone call wouldn't have been made if the wiretapping program was being splashed all over the news like it is today.

So if the Dems really were concerned about national security as they want us to think they are then shouldn't they have approached the President quietly, and voiced concerns? Anything besides using it as a political tool. It's even worked it's way in to the Alito hearings. They are now saying that they might fillibuster because Alito doesn't seem like the type that would call such wiretaps illegal. So are they adding to the debate or aiding our enemies? You decide.

Meanwhile Bush has come out in to the open on this after lambasting the Democrats for endangering national security. He has described the wiretap program and has said that he believes it to be totally legal and a vital tool for fighting terrorism. But he's Bush so how dare he?

Linked to Don Surber and