Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Obstruction

My mother always said, "if you can't say anything nice about a person, don't say anything at all." I am compelled to take that advice, as I am absolutely infuriated by what the left is doing right now.

From Valerie stinkin' Plame to NSA wire-tapping, to the refusal to renew the Patriot Act, to Rockefeller's cowardice; the left in this country are acting like a group of adolescent punks, posturing for the cheerleaders. Well, in this case voters. Time and again, the foolishness being espoused demonstrates the lack of seriousness of these people.

Rather than go off for the next hour, click here, here, here and here. This will adequately CONVINCE you of the legality and moral obligation of the President's actions.

The left are a bunch of jackals who will stop at nothing to grab power.

5 Comments:

At 7:48 AM, Blogger Squirrel said...

Yeah Grisby ... how dare you call the left a bunch of jackels ... what did those nice jackels do to deserve that comparison .... :)

 
At 1:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Legality and moral obligation? Wasn't FISA put into place to make wiretaps available on a timely basis? Isn't naming a covert CIA agent a crime? The NSA can even get retroacitve approval of wiretaps under current law. But this adminstration believes it is above the law and has some perverted moral sense that since God is speaking directly to them they can do anything they want. Please name me one fascist dictator who did not think that any action they took was not morally and leagally justified. I'm not calling Bush a fascist, but you seem to want to proscribe those kinds of powers to him. Maybe you are too young to remember, but in all of the hullabaloo over Clinton's misdeeds with Monica and his subsequent resistance to investigation and prevarications , I heard any number of times that impeachment was necessary because, "We are a nation of laws, not men." Well we have laws, but Bush and his type seem to think they are above them. Y'all are being used by this guy. He wants to do anything he pleases and all he has to do is cry, "Terror!!" or "National security!!"

 
At 5:21 PM, Blogger Grisby said...

I appreciate your reading and taking the time to comment. I apologize that my response has been so tardy, but I only recently noted the comment. Please note the following:

From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (2002) "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

Additionally, John Hindraker noted in his post that “The Truong court [United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.”

It is abundantly clear from the case law that the NSA program is widely precedented, legal, and justified. As such, it is unclear to me as to where the President actually broke the law. In your example regarding President Clinton, he actually did break the law, by committing perjury before a grand jury, which is a felony.

The facist comparison is a clever one; however, this is reminscient of the criticisms of Patriot Act abuses. This is specious at best, as I am unaware of any provable misuse of the Patriot Act. Sounds convincing, but where are all of the abuses?

Valerie Plame is a serious affair, to which adequate space has been given on this blog. Suffice it to say, her status has been widely known since 1991(see my earlier posts).

Thanks again for your comments.

 
At 11:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess it comes down to a matter of trust. You trust this Administration, I do not.

What is to trust about this Administration? Uranium from Niger? Iraqi's greeting us with flowers and sweets when we liberate them? Bush's full (dental) disclosure of his National Guard Record?

This Administration has hidden behind the cloak of executive privilege far too long. Energy Task Force? Oh that is a matter of "national security," they cannot divulge the proceedings of what went on there, I guess because corporate executives are not just setting energy policy, they are experts on national security.

Your post begs the question, "Why is there FISA at all?" Because there is a history of the government using its powers to spy on it citizens, like Hoover's FBI. You trust them to investigate only terrorists, I do not. Judicial oversight is needed to prevent abuse of power. Granted, investigations are needed to prevent terrorist attacks, but what is to prevent this administration or any administration investigating its political enemies. Call me paranoid but how will we know who they are investigating if there is no outside oversight? How much do you want to bet that if Congress investigates this, that the Administration will push for the Senate Intellegence Committee to investigate behind closed doors rather than the Judiciary Committee in the full light of day? Oversight is needed to put a check on executive power. Preventing executive excess is a basic tenet of the constitution.

Besides, what does the Administration have to be afraid of? As has been noted before, there are provisions for the NSA to begin spying immediately and get a retroactive warrant later, so timeliness is not a factor. FISA has denied very few requests. If the Administration is truly wiretapping terrorists only, why not follow the policies and safeguards that are in place and do this completely above board?

In any case, what would they do with the intelligence they gathered, the same thing they did with the pre 9/11 Presidential Daily Brief "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US," ignore it?

You can reference all the sources you want on the legality of the NSA's actions during wartime, but I simply do not trust these people do do the right thing.

 
At 11:53 PM, Blogger Grisby said...

You make several relevant points and I think it comes down to this:
you don't trust them, and I will trust them until I have reason not to, e.g., proof of abuses. In the meantime, if NSA wants to listen to some Islamists plotting, in say Rochester, NY for example, I say let 'em.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home