Question of the day
| By Bobby - Mar 15th, 2006 at 12:37 pm EST |
| Also listed in: Broom Brigade |
Does this look like an apology to you?
Sure doesn't look like one to me.
Senator Allard accused Senator Feingold of treason for introducing a censure resolution (seeking to censure President Bush for breaking federal law and lying about it). Here's what Senator Allard said:
That goes way beyond questioning Feingold's patriotism. That's an outright accusation of treason. Join in demaning an apology from Senator Allard:
www.ProgressNowAction.org/AllardApologize
Senator Wayne Allard:
"I have tremendous respect for and share Senator Feingold's determination to protect the first amendment rights of every U.S. citizen. However, in case of the NSA's surveillance of terrorists, I think Senator Feingold is barking up the wrong tree. We should be looking for new ways to better track and apprehend terrorists, not punishing the President for fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities. We are in war that cannot be won by ignoring the activities of terrorists in our nation. We must be prepared to do what is necessary under the law to protect our country against the possibility of another September 11. To me, that is exactly what the President did when he authorized the NSA surveillance program. Censoring (sic) the President for taking this action in my mind just smacks of political opportunism and does nothing to make our nation any safer."
Sure doesn't look like one to me.
Senator Allard accused Senator Feingold of treason for introducing a censure resolution (seeking to censure President Bush for breaking federal law and lying about it). Here's what Senator Allard said:
"he [Feingold] has time and time again taken on the side of the terrorists that we're dealing with in this conflict."Click here to listen to the audio clip yourself.
That goes way beyond questioning Feingold's patriotism. That's an outright accusation of treason. Join in demaning an apology from Senator Allard:
www.ProgressNowAction.org/AllardApologize
Comments are closed for this post.
Was the Boston Tea Party a terrorist event? Perhaps we should check with Allard...
Perhaps we should take some of the faces off of Rushmore...
Allard is right, we should be looking for better ways to stop terrorists... BUT breaking the law is not one of them Mr. Allard. When there are clearly ways to get the job done without breaking the law, and you still break the law... YOU ARE A CRIMMINAL... I guess the Republicans are just soft on crime...
What is next... we need a timeline on this stuff, you can not even keep track of it!
Allards Centennial Office @ Caley and Quebec?
Perhaps a second one at Broadway and Colfax in front of the Denver Post?
Sometime Thursday or Friday?
I've got a really big sign but it helps to have a dozen or so to help.
John Kennedy
303-220-0446 [leave mesage if out]
Email me: protestinthestreet@yahoo.com
When you call a foreign nation you really don’t have an expectation of priovacy, especially when calling a known terrorists phone.
Also, you must consider phone taps overseas are some of the most fruitful sources of human intelligence gathering. The disposable phones are whats being targeted, not citizens.
Common…stop getting nuts on this, this is why we’re loosing elections. We keep having a knee jerk response whenever a Republican does anything. If Kerry had some balls and said we’re going to kick the shit out of the terrorist…you know something…we would be in office right now.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
I don't think the amendment contemplated electronic eavesdropping, which is arguably not a search, and certainly not a seizure. So, I am not sure what we are to learn by reading the 4th amendment.
I would argue that the Boston Tea Party was a protest and vandalism, not terrorism. Terrorism is typically defined as having its primary objective fear, as opposed to military actions which normally have an actual physical objective. But, the line is often gray. I am sure the words the British used to describe the Revolutionary War were not kind.
What we need to do is get back to what is it we are trying to do. Whether a Senator says something indelicate or apologizes or not is pretty darned unimportant. And, for that matter, whether or not there is a censure is unimportant, too.
Let's revisit FISA and see if it still effective in its two purposes -- protecting the rights of Americans and allowing for an effective exercise of intelligence gathering.
I would think that there is a reasonable solution that would allow us to eavesdrop on the people we need to, without invading reasonable expectations on privacy of American citizens.
I don't think anyone believes that the intent of the eavesdropping was anything but trying to thwart terrorists. Lets have a discussion to see where on the continuum of freedom and security we want to stand. This is not a black and white issue.