A first.

C.I.R. Press Editorial

– This will be the first time I have publicly criticized President Bush. I have not in the past mostly do to the fact that I believe in his policies and decisions. Other times the problem has been small and I felt that there is no way for one person to please everyone, therefore I looked at the big picture and was able to continue to fully support and stand behind my leader. One of the biggest reasons for supporting President Bush was for his hard-line, no BS approach on terrorism.

Well now it would seem he has indeed decided to stop the TSP. I am deeply troubled by this action and it frustrates me deeply. Remember, this programs purpose was in no way to gather evidence to prosecute the individual. So the idea that any information gathered could not be used in a court of law is a pointless argument, the program was to listen for a possible attack and stop people from being killed.

I don’t know the reasoning behind it, possibly not wanting to deal with hearings in to the program by the new (in my eyes) weaker Congress, but if that is the case then I am even more troubled. I still contend it was legal, as my resident opposition will surely say it was not. You will not change my mind on that. I am saddened that it would appear the President of the United States of America has bowed down to pressure that could ultimately cost American lives.

“Gonzales said a judge on the secret FISA court recently approved a government proposal allowing it to target communications into and out of the United States when probable cause exists that one person is a member of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.”
I am sure the program will remain similar, however it might just be that one time FISA turns down a warrant or those extra hours that make the difference. I am deeply disappointed and just remind the left of what one of your fellow members said:

"We must engage in all surveillance necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, but we can and should do so in ways that protect the basic rights of all Americans including the right to privacy," [Sen. Patrick Leahy] said.
How do you say “we must engage in all surveillance necessary to prevent acts of terrorism” and follow it up in the next sentence say you need to limit the surveillance? If you are going to limit something then you are not doing “all” you could to prevent terrorism.


Previously: NSA (Never Screw Around), Emergency Action Message 20060427, PATHETIC!, LIBs: Get oversight, but it already existed., Together my ass!, Intel community protecting you., Illegal to have the upper-hand on terrorists!

Other blogging: [Will develop and add as needed...]

Technorati Tags:
, ,