Kinda faulty logic
It's convenient President Bush has decided now to tell us he thwarted a terrorist attack in 2002 just as questions surrounding the controversial domestic spying program heat up. Of course, he won't let administration officials participate in the hearings surrounding the shortcomings in the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina, but using other supposed 'confidential' material to justify your actions is 'OK.'
Regardless, is it me or is it a rather silly argument to say that a controversial - and possibly illegal - domestic spying program stopped a terrorist attack? Shouldn't it be doing that?
I mean, the president could ban air travel and that would directly reduce the number of terrorist attacks via airplane, but that doesn't mean it's a responsible or appropriate step to take.
Regardless, is it me or is it a rather silly argument to say that a controversial - and possibly illegal - domestic spying program stopped a terrorist attack? Shouldn't it be doing that?
I mean, the president could ban air travel and that would directly reduce the number of terrorist attacks via airplane, but that doesn't mean it's a responsible or appropriate step to take.
posted by Jmac at 8:07 PM
14 Comments:
Yeah, but I think most Americans do think that this would be an appropriate way to stop terrorism. Stopping flights might not be, but listening to phone calls would be. If listening to phone calls made by terrorists (no matter what country the participants are in) stops terror attacks, then do it. Right or wrong, the Dems are going to lose badly on this issue in the "court of public opinion" if they keep pushing it.
You think MOST Americans think this is okay? What, exactly, leads you to that conclusion?
It's all about framing issues when it comes to public opinion, and rather than push the issue - which they really aren't - they're conceding it and moving on to 'safer' ground for Democratic issues.
And I don't know if most Americans feel this way. I think a small majority do, but when you start breaking down the numbers you see there is much division over the issue. Breaking down public opinion data all depends on the questions asked, and each party (and news organization) asks different questions and garner different responses.
I'd like to see Democrats articulate more clearly why the domestic spying issue is worth noting (and, primarily, why it's unnecessary with regard to existing laws), but they won't because they feel the same way you do Xon.
Amber, yes. I think that most Americans have little to no problem with spying on terrorist phone conversations, warrant be darned.
Most polls I've seen to this point give me this impression, though I'm not a big fan of polls anyway. I guess I just have my finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist. You should trust me on this.
JMac, what is a "small majority"? How is it different from "most"? (Doesn't "majority" just mean "most"?)
A 'small majority' would be, say, 53-48 ... nothing terribly decisive. Yes, a majority of people back something, but it's not an overwhelming amount.
Talk about oversimplification of the issues my friend, not that I should be surprised.
Whether or not it's a political viable issue for Democrats to pursue is one thing, but to suggest it's an issue not worthing discussing or debating is a wholly other one. Which is why merely saying 'Democrats don't want to wiretap terrorist's phonecalls' is incredibly naive.
Not one Democrat has come out and said we go above and beyond to protect our country from attack. What Democrats - and many Republicans mind you - have been arguing here is that the existing law sets up all of the necessary components to ably defend the country. This is the law the Bush administration, unnecessarily, has been circumvented.
If the president wanted to wiretap a suspicious phonecall, he could make the order, begin the wiretap and be granted a three-day window in which he could seek a warrant to do so, and most reports I've seen show that FISA grants warrants anywhere from half an hour after the request to 48 hours, which is completely within the three-day window cited above.
So I've got absolutely no problem wiretapping domestic phone calls which can lead us to thwarting possible terrorist attacks. Why then, do you have a problem operating within the existing framework of the law to achieve exactly the same thing?
This ...
Not one Democrat has come out and said we go above and beyond to protect our country from attack.
should read ...
Not one Democrat has come out and said we shouldn'tgo above and beyond to protect our country from attack.
And this is part of the whole public opinion thing that irks me. Why are we dumbing down the electorate? Yes, some people are going to back the Bush administration's rationale regardless and some people are going to back the Democratic Party regardless, but what about the vast majority of the folks in the middle of this thing?
Why simply say 'gee, we shouldn't do this since it isn't polling well initially?' Instead, how about organize a coherent and intelligent response and make your case to people and let them decide?
It may fly or it may not, but why abandon some things which should be debated and discussed?
I have my finger up my zietgist too, lol... and I can tell you as an activist of life long standing, that everyone I know figures that Bush should have used the FISA court instead of circumventing it.
Becuase NO BODY I know trusts Bush to only be wiretapping alqueda sympathizers. NOONE I know is stupid or naive enough to believe for one minute that he isn't tapping his political enemies, like the Quakers in both Atlanta and Florida. I am a Quaker, and I take it real personally that he sent thugs with recorders on into my churches. And I can tell you, there are NO al-queda sympathizers in the Quaker church. No, not even one.
If you trust Bush, good on ya', but don't call us wimps re national security just becuase we know better. And anyone with an IQ of over 100 knows that War time presidents tend to abuse the rights of American citizens. History is clear. Concentration camps, anyone? Becuase if you let this arrogant elitist pig get away with this, Concentration Camps are next. Oh, wait, can we talk about Guantanemo? That's a holding facility where folks don't have access to lawyers or their loved ones.... which makes it YES, a concentration camp.
I am reminded of that poem about they came for the Jews, they came for the Christains, etc., and that when they came for me there was nobody left to stand up for me.
I am a very proud populist, and it makes my skin crawl to see such young supposedly well informed young folks as yourselves falling for this man's lies. Open your eyes and read a little history to get a better perspective on what this slime ball is doing to promote his pro-oil industry agenda.
aquariusrizing
I love how you completely ignored my response to resort to a story regarding Nixon you've told three or four times in these debates. Speaking of echo chambers ...
aquariusrising, I'm going to channel Ann Coulter for a moment and suggest that Quakers are wimps on national security. Isn't that one of the whole points of being a Quaker? (I come from a family of Mennonites, so I think I know of what I speak here).
Not that they should be spied on, mind you. They shouldn't be. Let me be real clear on that.
That's a popular sentiment apparently. My wife accuses me of the same thing, particularly with regard to stories from high school ... of which many Xon was present for.
1) Are the Quakers behind some political movement that has escaped my attention? That all seems a little hokey to me, but government officials spying in churches (for things like copyright infringement, particularly) is common and has been for decades. Quakers haven't been marginalized in that regard.
2) If the "secret" warrant is a formality anyway, then what is the big deal? First the government sets up a "secret" court where the executive branch can get "secret" warrants to do just about anything. Now, we want to hold the executive branch accountable for not fulfilling their "secret" responsibilities. Shouldn't the stink be about the "secret" court to begin with?
3) What recourse is there? So, we get rid of this administration. Does that stop the wire-tappings? Um, no. They have been going on for years. This isn't a Democrat v. Republican thing. This is a Government v. Governed thing. No matter the President's party, the breach of civil liberties will continue. Until we stop taking crazy, politically-motivated stances on these issues, our rights will continue to be trampled.
Post a Comment
<< Home