responding to isakson’s response

Posted: March 15th, 2006 | Author: jason | Filed under: politics | View Comments

As threatened, I shall now dissect with my scalpel sharp intellect- [wait, what do you mean we lost our scalpel sharp intellect? Well, what do we have? A liquor soaked frontal lobe or an overinflated amygdala? Gah.] Ok. Using those pieces of my brain not currently lost in the eighth dimension, I shall pound my way through Senator Johnny Isakson‘s response to my request that he support Senator Feingold‘s censure resolution.

Thank you for contacting me regarding domestic surveillance practices.

Off to a good start. He acknowledges that it is a domestic issue (despite the administration’s sadly effective attempt at shaping our opinion by playing up the foreign piece of the program). (I just realized that in all of my writing about this, I’ve been assuming that y’all know what the program is, well, as much as anyone who wasn’t chosen by God to rule the nation (and tomorrow the world!) knows. Here’s a handy little fact sheet from Senator Feingold.)

I wholeheartedly believe that the domestic surveillance program authorized by President Bush is both within the confines of his presidential authority and is a vital component of our national security.

And I’ve got a friend who keeps his dresser locked because he believes the underpants gnomes want his boxers. I’d put money on his belief over Isakson’s any day. (At least the senator doesn’t talk about that super secret section of Article II where it says the President can do anything he likes if his name is George. I’m tired of everyone in Washington gloating that they can see that part and we can’t.)

I am a strong supporter of the right to privacy afforded to every American, but I also believe that if a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist is communicating in the United States, our President must have the ability to authorize the monitoring of those conversations.

Hey! I agree! I want the President to keep an eye on suspected terrorists. Heck I want him to wiretap any calls they make that are entirely domestic. I just want him to obey the law and, you know, get a warrant. Heck, if he doesn’t get a warrant, how will anything he hears with those magical ears of his be admissible in court? (Wait, we haven’t done away with due process too, have we?)

Several court cases have upheld the President’s inherent authority to conduct searches without a warrant to obtain foreign intelligence.

Uh, sure. We’re talking about domestic intelligence though (as he’s already said twice). He should stay out of the non sequitur business; Zippy is much better at it. No case history exists, to my knowledge, that recognizes any authority, inherent or otherwise, by which the President may conduct warrantless searches for over four years.

The United States is fighting a war unlike any other in our history. This war is a digital war with enemies who are using the very resources and freedoms that Americans enjoy in order to plan and carry out their evildoings.

Ooo. Sounds like a great opening for a TV show (well, “evildoings” sounds a little goofy, but that could just be me).

It would be irresponsible of us to keep the President from using the tools necessary to fight this war, and I believe wiretapping individuals within the United States connected to al-Qaeda, is a vital tool to winning the War on Terror.

Something else with which I agree! However, taking away “the very… freedoms that Americans enjoy” means we’ve forgotten why we’re fighting this war. We’re not fighting so that they don’t fly more planes into more buildings or blow up bridges or drop 5,000 sex-starved marmots down into the stands at the World Series. Depending on how you hang, we’re either fighting because they hate the freedom we have here (a freedom we have because we live under the rule of law, which we lose when we allow the Executive to set policy instead of carrying out policy as set by the Legislature) or we are fighting because they see our country as repressive around the world (which we only prove to be true by allowing the President to act as he chooses and not as allowed by the law).

I believe that Congressional hearings are necessary to help the American people realize the complexity and necessity of this important program.

Woohoo! I agree again! Of course, his fellow Senators on the Intelligence Committee seem to think that a subcommittee just observing the program and unable to report to the people what’s going on is all we really need. I certainly think we need more and so, supposedly, does Senator Isakson. I’ll be watching closely to see if he follows through.

The only people who should be worried about this program are the terrorists, and I believe they should be worried.

Of course as we, Congress, and the courts all have no idea how the President is deciding who is a terrorist and who is not (and apparently none of us have a right to know), we should all be worried.

---