more evidence of stupidity

lets see if i can keep myself out of this category this time…. ;p

so anyway… i keep reading this and that about the so-called domestic-spying-program Bush authorized the NSA to do without warrants.

What is stupid is that the opponents to this are (rightly) making the argument that hey… you broke the law the way you went about it. which is the real issue that has them up in arms… not the debate on whether or not it is a valuable tool in this so-called war on terror.

but that’s what the proponents keep reiterating. well we need to do this to protect the country.

who the frack cares? thats not what’s pissed people off. its how they went about it.

Time and time again I say it… if the law gets in your way of doing what you want to do as an elected official… GO CHANGE THE LAW. Our constitution has remained a living document for over two centuries because we can change it… nothing in our system of law is so rigid it can’t be altered to meet the times.

Just fracking do it right. Go to Congress. Tell them you need this ability. Explain why. Get them to change the law, or amend the constitution. We have processes in place to do this for exactly that reason.

but its expecting to much for anyone in government to stay focused on the actual issue in any debate.

4 Replies to “more evidence of stupidity”

    1. Well by his logic then…. not only would this wiretapping be illegal… (assuming of course his interpretation of constitution is the same as the rest of us) but something that the administration would have zero hope of ever making legit.

      1. Not if he deems it as ‘reasonable search & seizure’ based on the war powers of the executive office. If he believes that then Bush, or any other president, could get away with anything except illegally holding someone, murder or kidnapping. And even those could be passed off to some extent I would imagine in his antiquated view of the world.

        1. grin. i suppose that’s probably true. sort of the tradeoff I guess of keeping your constitution general enough to try and cover these sorts of things… too much room for interpretation.
          i really think its time we convened a new constitutional convention to update the constitution (not replace it entirely) for a new millenium.
          Our modern world has raised some questions, the answers of which are obviously not as cut and dry as maybe they should be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *