Thursday, August 17, 2006

NSA Wiretaps - Unconstitutional?

How many Americans will have to be murdered by terrorists in our nation before our country realizes that we are in a war? Did 9-11-01 happen? We seem to be experiencing collective amnesia. The terrorist guerrillas want to kill us. They are very clear about their goals. Today, a federal judge, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, appointed by Jimmy Carter, ruled that the NSA Wiretap Surveillance Program was unconstitutional. Yes, for normal criminal behavior but do the same rules apply when we are fighting terrorists? The program is designed to stop the attacks of war before they happen, before thousands of us are murdered. Our criminal justice system is designed to become active after a crime has been committed, not usually before. Our constitutional freedoms should not attach to terrorists who want to kill us whether they are in the United States or if they are on foreign soil. The ACLU brought the case, as I understand it, on behalf of journalists and others who say they cannot do their jobs, talking to their foreign sources. Is this really about freedom of speech or is it about newspapers making money? Is it really newspapers versus our security? Are the journalists putting their stories ahead of our safety? One has to wonder. I don't know the answer. I do know that some day soon, we must start treating the terrorizing guerrillas as enemy combatants, not as criminals. It's a good thing for us that FDR and the men and women who fought in WWII overseas and sacrificed here at home were more clear about the enemy they faced and the stakes that were involved. As I responded to a comment, perhaps we need to see if Judge Taylor's ruling is upheld. If it is upheld all the way to the Supreme Court, we'll have to see who is blamed for the next terrorist attack on American soil. President Bush, no doubt! What does he do then? Maybe he should just shrug his shoulders and say, "The Imperial Court made me do it." I support our freedoms (all of them). I cannot understand how the freedoms of our Constitution attach to everyone around the world wherever they are, especially those who say they want to murder us. Not only do they say they want to kill us, they go about doing it rather effectively. I recommend the Patriot Post.US as a reference of their effectiveness. The terrorists have made the world their battleground; therefore, they are enemy combatants wherever and whenever they strike. God bless you and God bless America!


Blogger Repack Rider said...

How many Americans will have to be murdered by the guerrillas usingterror tactics before our country realizes that we are in a war?

I wasn't aware that there were roving bands of armed people in the United States striking at civilian targets, then fading away until the next sortie. Do you have any further info on this "guerilla war" that you say is taking place in our country, apparently unnnoticed by the generally hysterical media?

Today, a federal judge, US District Judge AnnaDiggs Taylor, appointed by Jimmy Carter, ruled that the NSA WiretapSurveillance Program was unconstitutional.

Well DUH! I knew that the second I heard about it. Read the Fourth Amendment, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Yes, for normal conditionsbut not when fighting terrorists.

Why don't you make a list of all the things people could tell you that would cause you to give up your Constitutional rights. Do guns scare you? Well then, by all means, cancel the Second Amendment, and we could save another 20,000 American lives every year. That's six or seven times the number of Americans who have ever died at the hands of terrorists, and that number dies every year because we choose to allow guns in our society. Ready to give up the 2nd to save lives?

I didn't think so. I guess it isn't about saving lives then.

The program is designed to stop theattacks of war before they happen, before thousands of us are murdered.

What if George W. Bush had actually read the document presented to him a month before 9/11, entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside United States?" Wouldn't it have made a difference if he hadn't gone on vacation instead of reading it and responding to it? It would have been so much simpler than tapping millions of phones, and it would have been Constitutional.

Osama turned out to be Bush's best friend, and vice versa. Without Osama (the BOOGIEMAN!) to terrify cowards (51% of America) Bush would not be president now, and without an enemy as incompetent as George W. Bush, Osama would be in jail.

Is this really about freedom of speech or is it aboutnewspapers making money? Is it really newspapers versus our security?

A free press is better security than a government that acts in secret and violates the Constitution.

I don't know the answer. I do know that some daysoon, we must start treating the terrorizing guerrillas as enemycombatants, not as criminals.

If they live in this country they ARE criminals. Despite my first comment there is in fact NO GUERILLA WAR going on in the United States right now. Also, unless a war is declared by Congress, there are no "enemy combatants."

You write like someone who failed eighth grade civics. Okay, and English also. Sorry, but it's true.

Click this link to see that I am a military veteran, and to find out how I feel about chickenhawks.

12:18 AM  
Blogger Beach Girl said...

Thank you for your response, Repack Rider. Thank you for your service to our nation.

I strongly support the Second Amendment and believe that everyone should belong to the NRA - gun owner or not. I am tired of hearing terrorists called terrorists and so I looked for a more inclusive term. Terrorism is a tactic. Roving our streets in gangs, well the ground is prepared for that. They certainly are in other nations. Perhaps the Muslim man who attacked the Jewish ladies (killing one) brandishing his two guns and a knife was just a thug. But wait! He wasn't a gang. But we do have an Army of One these days. Would he qualify?

I have read the Fourth Amendment. I've read the entire Constitution many times. I've even highlighted the good parts. My husband fought in Vietnam and, if anything, I am much stronger on our nation winning wars instead of appeasing terrorists as the Israelis seem to have been forced to do by the highly esteemed UN.

Maybe there is a better word to describe terrorists. Please advise. The word terrorist derives from the root word, terror. In regions where they are stronger and more heavily armed, what would you call them?

Freedom of the press is vital to our nation; however, in time of war, some might say that a modicum of patriotism could come into play before they publish information that could cost us agents. How would you deal with folks who breach national security?

Thank you for your kind remarks about my writing skills and my knowledge of civics. One thing adults learn in writing and speaking is that they do not always write in complete sentences. Linguistically, we have many patterns and a flow to our communication. Read several editorials by Cal Thomas, Thomas Sewell, Walter E. Williams, and even Ann Coulter(sp). You may enjoy White Guilt by Shelby Steele.

Repack rider, thanks again for your comments. We'll just have to wait and see if Judge Taylor is over-turned. If she is not, I wonder who will take the heat when another terrorist attack occurs, an attack that we could have prevented? President Bush, no doubt!

Went to your web site. It looks very good. I have failed once again, however, not being able to find a way to contact you.

You can find plenty of chickenhawks in Demo-land but not at my home.

6:35 AM  
Blogger Beach Girl said...

Repack Rider - just a note. Congress has voted and declared war against terror, now called "the war on terror".

About my Constitutional rights. I don't want to give up one of them, yet I see that happening. No, guns don't scare me. Maybe you could consider reading a few more of my posts. I want our troops to be able to fight to win. Oh, when they went door-to-door in Iraq, would you call them guerrillas? I wouldn't.

Again, thanks for your comments. Won't change my writing style, however. Took me many years to shed the yoke of "formal" English and learn that I simply don't have to write in complete sentences each and every time. The reader (if fluent in English) is expected to know that writers use different mechanism for emphasis.

Take care and again, thank you.

6:46 AM  
Blogger B29 said...

Hey, Rpack Rider! I visited your site and I'm not impressed, sorry...
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" - Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1949.

9:24 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

  • International Civil Liberties Alliance
  • The Belmont Club
  • Gates of Vienna
  • The Blogmocracy
  • Larwyn's Linx at Director Blue
  • Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx
  • Conservative Blogs - Home Center Right
  • 100 Excellent Conservative blogs you should be reading
  • Antz in Pantz - Kickin' and Screamin'
  • Honor Killing in America - Never Forget
  • Sharia from European Court of the Rights of Man
  • Terrifying Brilliance of Islam
  • Triumph of Islam - How Primitive Tribalism Can Defeat Advanced Civilisation
  • Why is Islam so successful?
  • The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex"
  • Three Things about Islam: Remember that the Quran is NOT the torah or the Bible
  • Links
  • Secure Freedom - NO Mosque at Ground Zero
  • Gates of Vienna - a MUST Read
  • Islam - The Religion of Peace
  • Muslim Domination of Public Space
  • Trencherbone