Interesting.
You wrote:
“But the article fails to indicate that these “warrantless wiretaps” are focused on tapping phones of non-citizens who have been linked to terrorism.”
Do you believe that? Only “non-citizens who have been linked to terrorism?” Outside of the bleatings of administration apologists, where is the proof? Oh. Yes. We must trust those in authority.
Fast forward a couple of years. Do you trust that authority in the hands of Dennis Kucinich? Hillary? Howard Dean?
Really?
Well, I don’t. And I don’t trust it in the hands of our current administration, either.
I have no doubt that the monitoring without warrants has extended well beyond supposed Islamic extremists. After all, without warrants there is no review, no oversight. FISA was not a major burden.
That it has been tossed overboard by a highly secretive administration without credible justification tells me someone in Washington has something to hide. There is no proof that I’ve seen that monitoring has been limited to non-citizens, and I don’t trust this government as far as I can toss them. Maybe I’m a little too libertarian for some.
Whatever. I stand by my position. We face a rabble who in their wildest dreams can be no more than a mosquito on the elephant. I for one will not yield to unwarranted fear.
I feel sorry for those who espouse hopeful, wishful arguments such as you have made.
Good luck to you.
you’re wasting your time, unfortunately. Most of the people who still defend Bush here trust in the Man in Office—not in the institutions. they’re totally willing to surrender all oversight and constitutional checks on Bush just because he’s Bush and they trust him. The constitutional checks apply to people they don’t trust, but not to the ones they do—because the people they trust are keeping them safe. It’s tautological.
It’s also dangerous and stupid.
Excellent post. My feelings exactly.