Who were targets of Terrorist Surveillance program?
The obvious answer is terrorist, but not to the Washington Post which describes the program as:
They and at least some in the media seem determined to make it difficult to stop the next attack by a determined enemy. Meanwhile the Washington Post has never found or interviewed one innocent American who can prove his communications were monitored, but it makes the representation anyway.
While Goldsmith and Comey can cobble together a legal argument saying the ridiculous paper chase is required, there is a much stronger argument that to the extent FISA would require such in a time of war it is unconstitutional. It is also absurd.
It should be pointed out that the premise of the article on keeping the number of attorneys working on the issue small is also misleading. The article implies that this was done because the administration knew it was illegal. In fact the best reason for doing it was to keep some self righteous jerk from revealing the program to the enemy by disclosing it to the media. Whoever was responsible for that disclosure was a traitor in a time of war and should be dealt with accordingly and not be made a hero by the media.
...The Post provides zero evidence that innocent US citizens were targeted. None. It is a conclusion on the part of the terrorist rights Democrats that they are parroting. The story then goes on to describe the program as:
The handling of the surveillance program has become a major flashpoint between the administration and Senate Democrats, who allege that the government relied on dubious legal advice to run an illegal spying program that targeted innocent U.S. residents.
...
...Why would anyone in their right mind assume that al Qaeda would be contacting innocent Americans? That is the absurdity of the Democrat objection to the program. If al Qaeda is contacting one of its cells in the US we must find out as much as we can about their plans in order to stop a planned attack. Sending lawyers out to jump through hoops while the plan of attack is being discussed is ridiculous. It was just such a paper chase that lost 10 hours in the hunt for the kidnappers of US soldiers in Iraq. But, Democrats will never take responsibility for such nonsense and will try to shift the blame rather than fix the problem.
The full contours of the program have not been officially disclosed. In part, it allowed the NSA to monitor communications between the United States and overseas without court oversight if one of the parties was believed to be linked to al-Qaeda or a related group. That activity is now authorized under legislation passed by Congress earlier this year.
...
They and at least some in the media seem determined to make it difficult to stop the next attack by a determined enemy. Meanwhile the Washington Post has never found or interviewed one innocent American who can prove his communications were monitored, but it makes the representation anyway.
While Goldsmith and Comey can cobble together a legal argument saying the ridiculous paper chase is required, there is a much stronger argument that to the extent FISA would require such in a time of war it is unconstitutional. It is also absurd.
It should be pointed out that the premise of the article on keeping the number of attorneys working on the issue small is also misleading. The article implies that this was done because the administration knew it was illegal. In fact the best reason for doing it was to keep some self righteous jerk from revealing the program to the enemy by disclosing it to the media. Whoever was responsible for that disclosure was a traitor in a time of war and should be dealt with accordingly and not be made a hero by the media.
Comments
Post a Comment