Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Guilty until Proven Innocent on Wiretapping Charges

The Left is hinging their main objection to the NSA wiretapping on the basis of its legality. They are accusing President Bush of engaging in 'illegal' wiretapping (domestic spying).

So, I have a few questions for them....

If it was proven that Bush acted within his legal rights as the President protecting U.S. citizens in wartime, would you still object to the wiretapping? Is your objection purely on a legal basis, or do you just object to wiretapping in general?

The fact is, that everyone is leaping to the conclusion that the President broke the law when nothing of the kind has been proven. What happened to the presumption of innocence?

What source of information is being used to determine that the NSA wiretapping was illegal? The New York Times article? Other media sources?

There is a some excellent analysis on this topic on
Powerline, which, by the way, is authored by three very smart attorneys in the Minneapolis area. I was going to bombard you with them, but it's probably better if you go there at your leisure and read them yourself.

I think they raise some very reasonable and informed questions about whether the wiretapping is truly illegal.

Since much of the mainstream media and the left-wing of the Democratic party seem obsessed with opposing anything that Bush does, I think that mainstream America is starting to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, many of the predictions of vast civil rights violations (little old ladies being dragged screaming from the library) have not come to fruition, whereas we know that there has not been a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Hard to get all lathered up about some vague 'potential' for civil rights violations when we have evidence that what we are doing is working.

I think the public is tiring of "the sky is falling" politics of the left and looking for some good old-fashioned bi-partisan problem solving. And, by the way, if listening in on phone conversations between know Al Qaeda operatives and unknown persons in the United States is illegal, then I think most people would agree that the law needs to be changed.

The world is a vastly different place than it was before 9/11 and the rapid advent of communication technology, such as cell phones, Blackberries, instant messaging and the like. I want our legislators to start working with the President to do whatever they can to make sure our laws make sense in this new age. I'd like to see more determination to protect law-abiding American citizens than protect the rights of those who would abolish ANY laws or liberties throughout the world.

The Democrats are scaring me more & more about their ability to govern our country in the post-9/11 era.

No comments: