The Truth Behind The NSA Wiretap Firestorm
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled Thursday that the NSA's secret wiretapping efforts violate both the Bill of Rights and federal law. This has been applauded by some as a great decision and a warning to President Bush that he is violating the law. To the Bush administration and the GOP it appears to be little more than an opportunity to further divide the country on Homeland Security issues.
The GOP came out swinging after the decision was announced. They are clearly trying to use this as a campaign issue to show that they are tough on terrorism while the Democrats are weak. The question is how much truth there is to this argument and how much is political spin in election year. As it turns out there just might be enough spin to keep the American public dizzy.
The GOP and the Bush administration would like everyone to see this issue as a difference between Republicans and Democrats, but what are the real differences? As it turns out, there are less than you might be lead to believe when it comes to this wiretapping program.
The Democrats have been demanding that the program use the FISA courts or some other form of accountability to ensure that this program is not violating the law and that it is not being used for purposes other than hunting terrorists.
Sen. Arlen Specter(R-PA) has been working closely with the Bush administration to craft legislation that would make the wiretapping program legal, but also ensure some checks and balances so that the program is not being abused. This has been held up partly by the fact that the Bush administration has been attempting to get the bill crafted to suit his needs. One of these has become a sticking point. Bush wants the FISA courts to do a one time review of the program and then essentially have the freedom to continue unchecked with the program.
In the end, it turns out that the Democrats are not against the wiretapping program as some would like you to think. They are against the Bush administration using this program without any accountability or checks and balances. It has been viewed in the past that if you give the government the power to do something, they will do it. This whole issue comes down to accountability. Should there be checks and balances in a program that has the power to listen to just about any phone conversation in the United States? The Democrats say there should and the Bush administration does not agree.
The GOP came out swinging after the decision was announced. They are clearly trying to use this as a campaign issue to show that they are tough on terrorism while the Democrats are weak. The question is how much truth there is to this argument and how much is political spin in election year. As it turns out there just might be enough spin to keep the American public dizzy.
The GOP and the Bush administration would like everyone to see this issue as a difference between Republicans and Democrats, but what are the real differences? As it turns out, there are less than you might be lead to believe when it comes to this wiretapping program.
The Democrats have been demanding that the program use the FISA courts or some other form of accountability to ensure that this program is not violating the law and that it is not being used for purposes other than hunting terrorists.
Sen. Arlen Specter(R-PA) has been working closely with the Bush administration to craft legislation that would make the wiretapping program legal, but also ensure some checks and balances so that the program is not being abused. This has been held up partly by the fact that the Bush administration has been attempting to get the bill crafted to suit his needs. One of these has become a sticking point. Bush wants the FISA courts to do a one time review of the program and then essentially have the freedom to continue unchecked with the program.
In the end, it turns out that the Democrats are not against the wiretapping program as some would like you to think. They are against the Bush administration using this program without any accountability or checks and balances. It has been viewed in the past that if you give the government the power to do something, they will do it. This whole issue comes down to accountability. Should there be checks and balances in a program that has the power to listen to just about any phone conversation in the United States? The Democrats say there should and the Bush administration does not agree.
posted by Superman @ 8/19/2006 09:07:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home