Friday, August 18, 2006

Wire Tap Ruling - Something Fishy

I read an AP article written by Sarah Karush in the Houston Chronicle, “U.S. court rules secret wiretaps unconstitutional” (linked via title bar). A few thoughts came to mind as I place my own conservative / libertarian leanings into the mix. I have on the one hand, a natural distrust of government’s powers and abuse of those powers and at the same time I accept that there needs to be a way to secure the country from those who would destroy it.

The first “red flag” to go up has to do with my loathing of the ACLU; most anything that group does undermines the foundations of the United States of America. They may well be the “anit-Christ” mentioned in the scriptures. As far as I’m concerned, the ACLU is the enemy; if they’re for it, as a rule it’s bad for the country.

“The ACLU filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which monitors international phone calls and e-mails to or from the U.S. involving people the government suspects have terrorist links.”

I had to ask, “Doesn’t that mean those journalists, scholars and lawyers are admitting that they are in direct contact with those we have identified as the enemy?” I would like to know, more specifically, which journalists, which scholars and which lawyers are in contact with terrorist or those supporting our enemies.

The track record of the news media would place a good portion of them on the side of the enemy, they being more sympathetic to their causes than to defending the U.S. from attacks by them. Certain scholars are inhibited by wire taps to foreign agents, presumably they mean the leftist community such as Ward Churchill or the radical Muslim professors who teach that the United States is evil and deserves to be destroyed, those scholars might be impacted by our attempts to expose the enemy. Last on the list were lawyers who are in contact with foreign agents; my only thought would be, “Hey, no big deal, enemy combatants make good clients too.”

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor made the ruling; but before I go any further I’d like to know a little more about her associations; particularly her political leanings. Why was her court chosen by the ACLU? My bet is that this will prove out to be a case of court shopping for a favorable or sympathetic associate who happened to be a judge in order to extend the ACLU’s agenda.

I suppose I’m one of those ignorant middle class Americans who just doesn’t understand how all this stuff works. I’ll let those who know so much more; Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and now, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor explain all those difficult details, the ones I’m too stupid to figure out on my own.

I’ve linked with TMH Bacon Bits who has what I like to call, “Open line Friday” where anyone can link any article regardless of content.

No comments: