Comments on: Bush Legacy Sound on Wiretapping

By: apageor2

apageor2 — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 06:52:01 +0000

Let’s not forget all that President Clinton has done to this country well before President Bush came along. Secondly, if anyone needs to start confessing, let’s call it like it is and begin with President Clinton’s term and every single action that took place while he was in office.

He started this issue with Ubama just as much as he did with Saddam. How quickly the Democrats tend to forget when their emotions suit their need. In my personal opinion, the House and Senate must be rebuilt with Conservatism before the GOP can continue to move forward.

By: Kat

Kat — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:26:51 +0000

Terrorism has risen exponentially worldwide since George W. Bush decided to take us to war against it. Yet here in the good old USA we have stayed “safe.” Look suspicious much? Never heard of false-flag ops? The CIA is squeaky clean? Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, eh? When did we become so fearful and dependent on the insanity to give us the illusion that a moron is the one man in the world who has gotten it right? He’ll leave some kind of legacy, but he’ll never be vindicated unless he confesses to the dirty deeds that compromised him into enacting such insane, uncaring, ignorant policy that has never been in anyone’s best interest except corporations like halliburton. As for hamas, this group was created by Israel to counter the PLO’s influence. Seriously, can we really be so retarded that we let them kill whoever stands in the way of United States greedy interest in other nation’s resources because we’re afraid? We’ve got WMD for you and me and then some. What the hell are we afraid of? Apparently we’re afraid of standing together against tyranny and it’s just sad that we’ve come to this.

By: Dallas

Dallas — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:25:41 +0000

Ok, so it’s legal. So apparently is the suspension of the ability of a prisoner to be presented the evidence against him if they are labelled a combatant or insurgent. You can argue all that is justified, but if the establishment or the government should decide to go Hoover-esque, there is all the precedent to detain and completely silence anyone who disagrees with the government or the organizations of the government as easily and effectively as China is doing it.

I think it is not about the detail, it is ensuring that the fundamentals of a free society are protected and in balance with the protection of that society. It’s not a simple “legal or not” argument. The DMCA is another law enacted by special interests for narrow purposes that lays groundwork for widespread abuse.

Any sovereign nation has always had the ability and right to defend itself against spying and other insurgent activity, and in many ways this judgement merely supports that by agreeing with the definition of the targets of the surveillance as potential hazards or threats.

“The left got it wrong again…” In the rhetoric war I suppose they did. That’s not the core issue, who’s right and who’s wrong. The core issue is what will be sacrificed from liberty and privacy in the interests of stopping terror and promoting perceived security? What balance do you want your country to have? The idea that such a fundamental and core basis of the US is drawn into “right and wrong” for a left and right spitting match is disheartening to say the least. The right wing used to scream about liberty and privacy, but as soon as the left argued for it against the right wing administration, well, principles out the window, and off we go with a shouting match.

It’s legal. That never means it’s automatically right or in the interests of the culture and citizens.

By: Jim Gray

Jim Gray — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:32:23 +0000

Thanks for posting this! Good to hear some positive info.