Domestic spying?
A political expert I am not, but this issue has been in the news for a few days now and I have some strong feelings about it. So here it goes ...
In Friday's New York Times, it was revealed that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans with possible terrorism ties. The ultra-secret agency eavesdropped on international telephone calls made to and from the United States, and monitored international emails for anything suspicious. This classified program started not too long after the Sept. 11 attacks. The NSA conducted this surveillance without a warrant, which is normally required in cases like this.
The Times first got this story one year ago, but was asked by the White House not to publish it. The newspaper agreed to give it more time and do further investigating, but the Times hierarchy decided to run the piece last Friday.
I am a conservative and have supported this president since he began his first term and I have to tell you, I have no problems with this secret program. Or maybe I should call it "the once secret program." Thanks to the New York Times and its ultra-liberal, anti-Bush stance, our enemies know what we have been doing the past four years. It is a disgrace to America that this story ran. It is not known who leaked this story to the media to begin with, but this person should be ashamed of him or herself. What kind of an American would tell the enemy how we conduct our intelligence gathering?
President Bush has defended this program after he confirmed its existence on Saturday and said it was perfectly legal. He said was within the grounds of Article II of the Constitution, which define the authority of the president, and with the laws of this country. Further, the program was re-examined about every 45 days to ensure everything was still legal.
Democrats have come out of the woodwork to criticize Bush and this program. They are all calling for congressional hearings, but it was THEIR congress that was made aware of this program. Leaders of the house and senate, along with key members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, were briefed on this program several times.
This spying program is necessary in the war against terrorism. We have already exposed two plots (one in the U.S., one in England) through the surveillance, and President Bush has vowed to maintain the spying. And he should. What is so wrong with tapping the phone lines of a suspected terrorist? How about someone talking to a known terrorist overseas? I have no problem with this and if for some reason the government started listening to my phone conversations and reading my emails, I would be happy. I have nothing to hide so if the NSA wants to conduct surveillance on me or anyone else that is innocent, what is so wrong with that? If you have nothing to hide, you should have no issues with domestic spying. It is critical to our safety and security in this age of terrorism.
The hijackers that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks were in constant telephone contact with overseas Al-Qaeda operatives and leaders. If this government was authorized to conduct domestic surveillance and was able to thwart the attacks, 3,000+ Americans would not have died in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania.
And one more point I'd like to make. The New York Times didn't just pick December 16 out of a hat when they debated about when to publish this story. Think about it. The Iraqi elections were held the previous day and they were labeled a success. No major attacks, a record number of voters worldwide, and Iraqis holding up their ink-stained fingers with pride. The Bush administration was on such a high and it was wonderful to see the elections turn out as they did. And then the Times published this article the following day, deflating the good feeling everyone had.
The liberal New York Times attitude and deliberate (in my opinion) attack on this president is a whole separate issue and I think it is a disgrace to the journalism industry.
I want to hear your thoughts on this so please leave a comment.
posted by Jason @ 10:27 PM
4 Comments:
Jas,
I couldn't agree with you more.
Prior to 9-11, I, and most people who are for it would have not agreed, but life as we knew it changed forever on 9-11 and we are in a fight for our very survival. Our enemy wants every one of us dead. Its amazing how quickly some of our own people have forget that. Even countries who have taken anti U.S. positions have experienced terror attacks. The bad guys don't care. I can't watch the news any more because the 24 hour networks, in competition to tell first, are revealing every detail to our enemy.
The Godfather
How long will the word "terrorist" be used to justify how much? how far will it go? how do you determine a terrorist BEFORE tapping their phones? someone who makes a lot of calls to afghanistan, kajikistan, iraq?
I think more than the NYT, the person who spilled the beans should be blamed, regardless of the timing. Under the first amendment, once the NYT had the story, they had no obligation to hold it for even a day. i'm shocked it was held this long.
Personally i don't like my news slanted either way. I'd rather have the facts and come to my own conclusions. Good luck finding a single news organization that is not obviously liberal or conservative.
One reporter asked Bush during yesterday's press conference, are there any limits to presidential powers during a war? It was a good question that was met with a vague answer that basically meant no. You cannot have a democratic country and expect the system of checks and balances to be ignored to the uplifting of the executive branch. This program is outside of his powers. You said it yourself. It normally requires a warrant.
If you allow this, where will you stop it? If allowed to continue unchecked, this program has the potential to turn into modern-day mccarthyism and the re-birth of wwII-era Japanese concentration camps.
Not only democrats are critcizing the program. There have been bi-partisan attacks on this program as well as the "patriot" act.
Hi Jay!
Its Liz. Sorry I have no comment on your post. Just wondering if you were coming home for Christmas! See you soon.
Most people would certainly agree that we live in a different world after 9/11. My problem is the fact that some people fail to see, or admit, that we too, as mostly arrogant Americans, contribute daily to this unimaginable level of paranoia. Guess what folks...we will NEVER be free of terrorists, or live without fear, or be completely safe on even our own soil. FYI, the world is a scary place. People not liking and even hating you is part of the deal. The problem here is the compromise on our civil liberties and rights...this is what we call a slippery slope. I have been in public safety for a long time, in the military, civilian law enforcement and fire fighting. The Bush administration is wrong. Period. We need to stop living in a constant state of fear.
Post a Comment
<< Home