craigfarmer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 175
- Reaction score
- 6
At a news conference with the esteemed press, President Bush made it clear that the "Terrorist Surveillance" program that has been the subject of much criticism is focused solely on international communications. This is defined as having at least one participant in a foreign country. He went on to declare that THERE WAS NO DOMESTIC SPYING! In fact when asked about a comment from someone thinking they were defending domestic spying ( asserting that 9/11 could have been prevented had authorities wiretapped conversations between terrorists ON and COMPLETELY WITHIN U.S. soil), the President reiterated the limited nature of the warrantless wiretaps.
This is typical of contemporary debate in our
country where various sides are discussing different questions, and arriving at adverse conclusions. The President clearly has an interest both policy-wise and political in confusing the public. Yet, it is unfathomable that the press would not repeatedly address the President's assertion that the government is not spying within our borders. WE ALL THOUGHT WE WERE and most normal people like myself approved under certain conditions as alluded to above. The debate initially centered around whether our civil liberties to communicate free of government intrusion were in jeopardy if the executive branch (w/o oversight) could listen in on our daily lives.
BUT NO!
Now we are scheduled to have Congressional hearings on wiretaps that aren't controversial, why?
Is the Administration lying now? Are they covering up completely domestic work?
If all they were/are doing, concerns international communications, why all the secrecy?
If we aren't monitoring domestic calls of suspected terrorists, why not? Or did the President mean to convey those needed, and he continues to seek a warrant for domestic spying?
After an hour of questions from a group of people whose job it is to get the facts, keen observors can not possible know more.
The press has failed us once again.
From all apparent evidence there are terrorists among us. We should and I hope are doing all we can to attack and disrupt what they are and might plan to do. If this is best done without court notification or in spite of certain arcane regulations, I DON'T CARE. I would like America to be safe. I also would like our government to be honest. I refuse to side with civil lib. extremists against my own security. However the ethics of the Bush admin. always seems to push independent minded thinkers that way.
Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" once again!
https://www.newliberals.org
This is typical of contemporary debate in our
country where various sides are discussing different questions, and arriving at adverse conclusions. The President clearly has an interest both policy-wise and political in confusing the public. Yet, it is unfathomable that the press would not repeatedly address the President's assertion that the government is not spying within our borders. WE ALL THOUGHT WE WERE and most normal people like myself approved under certain conditions as alluded to above. The debate initially centered around whether our civil liberties to communicate free of government intrusion were in jeopardy if the executive branch (w/o oversight) could listen in on our daily lives.
BUT NO!
Now we are scheduled to have Congressional hearings on wiretaps that aren't controversial, why?
Is the Administration lying now? Are they covering up completely domestic work?
If all they were/are doing, concerns international communications, why all the secrecy?
If we aren't monitoring domestic calls of suspected terrorists, why not? Or did the President mean to convey those needed, and he continues to seek a warrant for domestic spying?
After an hour of questions from a group of people whose job it is to get the facts, keen observors can not possible know more.
The press has failed us once again.
From all apparent evidence there are terrorists among us. We should and I hope are doing all we can to attack and disrupt what they are and might plan to do. If this is best done without court notification or in spite of certain arcane regulations, I DON'T CARE. I would like America to be safe. I also would like our government to be honest. I refuse to side with civil lib. extremists against my own security. However the ethics of the Bush admin. always seems to push independent minded thinkers that way.
Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" once again!
https://www.newliberals.org