PDA

View Full Version : WSJ defends illegal searches




Bradley in DC
03-29-2008, 06:21 PM
One Missed Call
March 29, 2008; Page A8

In Michael Mukasey, President Bush finally seems to have an Attorney General worthy of the current moment. In Nancy Pelosi's hometown this week, the former judge who once tried terror cases told the Commonwealth Club audience that even he had no idea of the extent of the threat.

Speaking of what he hears in his national security briefings, Mr. Mukasey said, "It is way beyond – way beyond anything that I knew or believed. So, if I was picked for the level of my knowledge . . . that was a massive piece of false advertising."

As reported by the New York Sun, he also offered a perspective, partly personal as a former Manhattanite, on the necessity of warrantless antiterror surveillance. Before 9/11, Mr. Mukasey said, "We knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went. We've got" – here the Attorney General paused with emotion – "we've got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn't come home, to show for that."

The AG also addressed why immunity from lawsuits is vital for the telecom companies that cooperated with the surveillance after 9/11. "Forget the liability" the phone companies face, Mr. Mukasey said. "We face the prospect of disclosure in open court of what they did, which is to say the means and the methods by which we collect foreign intelligence against foreign targets." Al Qaeda would love that. The cynics will call this "fear-mongering," but most Americans will want to make sure we don't miss the next terror call.

sluggo
03-29-2008, 06:28 PM
It's nice to see them taking a different approach to the same old fear mongering. Since the color coded terror alerts are out of fashion, it's time to turn Mukasey into the "aw shucks common man" who has stumbled upon the greatest threat the world has ever known.

And don't forget the most inportant message here: If you believe in freedom, then Al Queda has already won.............

Dr.3D
03-29-2008, 10:54 PM
So is this what we are going to live with? We let some so called terrorists dictate that we lose our freedom? I for one would rather see acts of terrorism than for the people of this great nation give up their freedoms.

What is terrorism anyway but something that takes away our freedoms? So if the terrorists don't take our freedoms, our government will? Perhaps this is a win for the terrorists either way we wish to look at it.

So far, we had a great loss of life when 9/11 took place. Now after going into the middle east, we have had an even greater loss of our own citizens lives than what happened on 9/11. This does not even count the loss of life of those who live in the middle east. When is this madness going to end?

grayangel
04-02-2008, 08:53 PM
I think it's pretty sick that the Attorney General of the United States is defending warrantless surveillance and immunity for the telecom companies who willfully participated in violating the Rights of their customers and Americans in general -- not that I would expect him to say anything else. It IS fear-mongering, and it is a testament to the ineptness of the CIA that this is even an issue. Essentially what he's saying is -- we can't protect America without breaking the Law. Unfortunately, America wouldn't need so much damn protection if those in power had ever respected the Law in the first place.