You are correct about his reasoning. But, the President CANNOT and SHOULD NOT give up the right to spy on foreign soil and foreign terrorists, just because those same terrorists make a phone call to American soil. It appears to me that the president was entirely correct in his actions. T0o order our agents to stop listening because the terrorists call here is foolish and possibly deadly. Other presidents have used this power on US soil! Didn’t we convict a spy who was working under the Clinton administration with this tactic? Why change the rules when a Republican is in office?
I will say that I am far more comfortable with the president who has shown himself willing to do what it takes to defend his countrymen, as opposed to the president who is willing to lie under oath to protect hiself.
David
Comment by David S — Wednesday, December 28, 2024 @ 11:34 pm
The issue, to me anyway, isn’t so much whether the type of surveillance that you discus can take place, the question is how and by what authority it is done–specifically whether or not there are adequate checks and balances in place.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, December 29, 2024 @ 8:26 am
This is a variation of the “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about” argument. I’ve seen it crop up several times recently, and even heard it on some national talk show over the holidays.
Missing the point, entirely, I’m afraid.
Comment by bryan — Thursday, December 29, 2024 @ 10:24 pm
[...] that all they are doing is looking for patterns that will help them catch al Qaeda (along with the asinine “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, what are you worried about” routine). [...]
You are correct about his reasoning. But, the President CANNOT and SHOULD NOT give up the right to spy on foreign soil and foreign terrorists, just because those same terrorists make a phone call to American soil. It appears to me that the president was entirely correct in his actions. T0o order our agents to stop listening because the terrorists call here is foolish and possibly deadly. Other presidents have used this power on US soil! Didn’t we convict a spy who was working under the Clinton administration with this tactic? Why change the rules when a Republican is in office?
I will say that I am far more comfortable with the president who has shown himself willing to do what it takes to defend his countrymen, as opposed to the president who is willing to lie under oath to protect hiself.
David
Comment by David S — Wednesday, December 28, 2024 @ 11:34 pm
The issue, to me anyway, isn’t so much whether the type of surveillance that you discus can take place, the question is how and by what authority it is done–specifically whether or not there are adequate checks and balances in place.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, December 29, 2024 @ 8:26 am
This is a variation of the “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about” argument. I’ve seen it crop up several times recently, and even heard it on some national talk show over the holidays.
Missing the point, entirely, I’m afraid.
Comment by bryan — Thursday, December 29, 2024 @ 10:24 pm
[...] that all they are doing is looking for patterns that will help them catch al Qaeda (along with the asinine “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, what are you worried about” routine). [...]
Pingback by PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » The NSA Knows Who You Have Been Calling — Thursday, May 11, 2024 @ 7:57 am