Wiretap Halt Isn’t Enough
That’s the headline to this Newsday editorial. Here’s the first thing that struck me when I read it:
The only federal judge to rule on the program to date found the warrantless wiretapping unconstitutional.
Unless I miss my guess, the federal judge that this editorialist is referring to Anna Diggs-Taylor. Using this argument is bound for failure because Diggs-Taylor’s ruling won’t make it past the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This woman is connected to the ACLU. It isn’t coincidental that the case was titled ACLU vs. NSA. As I wrote here, Diggs Taylor should’ve recused herself because of all the conflicts of interest in this case.
As ridiculous as that statement is, it isn’t nearly the most ridiculous. Here’s my choice for the most over the top statement in the editorial:
Unless that’s firmly rejected, the nation will remain on the road to a surveillance state.
Is this person delusional? As a libertarian, I don’t want the government to have more power than it needs but I’d be lying if I said that I don’t want the government to have the power to protect me from terrorists. What does this editorialist base this statement on? Total paranoia? I’d doubt that it’s based on verified facts since this was a top secret program until Eric Lichtblau and James Risen splashed it across the front pages of the NY Times.
Technorati Tags: NSA, Intelligence, NY Times, ACLU, Terrorism
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
January 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
[...] Original post by Gary Gross and software by Elliott Back [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CONSTANTLY LISTEN TO MAINSTREAM MEDIA. YOU GET PARANOID ABOUT EVERYTHING. AS USUAL THE LIBERALS WANT TO BE PROTECTED, BUT THEY DON’T WANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Tramadol….
Tramadol….