Posted: Feb 14, 08 1:21pm
The President is pushing the Congress hard to pass the Surveillance Bill and has threatened a veto if it is passed as only an extension...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23148212/
Combine that little ditty with the torture debate...is or is not a torture technique employed by the Spanish inquisition torture today provided it is conducted on some semi-off-shore territory?
The hawks will point fingers at the Dovish wimps and the wimps will point fingers at the Constitutional Trampling Hawks...quite the Bird Fight with Avian Droppings to scatter everywhere.
Forgive my amoral approach but when is someone going to look at this from a pragmatic sense of view?
I find myself on the wimp side of both arguments but would advise the little boogers to elevate the dialog to a strategic interest debate.
Forget whether it is right or wrong...how about we simply focus on the faux-argument of these two positions?
1) The National Security Act of 1976 provides the President with the ability to conduct surveillance provided there is judicial oversight. The act provides a panel of judges available 24/7 to stamp the approval of requests in a timely fashion. We simply need to work out the logistics of this oversight in a digital age.
2) WARS are not simply won and lost with bayonets and Bullets,...WARS are as much about competing ideas as they are competing armed forces. When we say in one breath..."the terrorists hate us for our freedoms" and then justify suppression of those freedoms for expediency, we cede to the enemy the "idea high ground". As repulsive as their agenda is, they seem the least likely to compromise their principals (however inane).
I look forward to more brain power being deployed in the "War on Terror".
Remember "Teddy" named Mohammed who almost got a British School Teacher decapitated? Well he found a more helpful job...
http://www.markfiore.com/?phpMyAdmin=7aTx1mD0FvhOPGcsUo36-OZMqo4
Torture da'som bitches
