Letter to the Editor
Yet another in a series of letters I send to the SF Chronicle that probably won't get published...
Editor --
It is sad -- but not surprising -- that the president and his dwindling band of apologists have come out so strongly against the recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor finding the NSA warrantless wiretapping program to be in violation of the Constitution (Chronicle, 8/19). This president apparently has no use for the Constitution of the United States, and has never felt that he was bound by its restrictions on his power. Moreover, this ruling, if it is upheld (and it should be), would seem to open up the very real possibility of impeachment and criminal prosecution for his actions. No wonder the president disagrees with it.
What is sadder still is the attempt to paint supporters of this correct decision as unpatriotic and abetting terrorism. No one on either side of the debate disputes the fact that keeping tabs on suspected terrorists is necessary in this day and age; all we ask is that the president follow the law of the land and obtain the proper warrants to do so. Given the nature of the FISA court, this should be a simple enough process, and should in no way hinder any legitimate investigation that the NSA might want to carry out.
In other words, we want the president to not break the law and not violate the Constitution. What part of "warrantless" do Republicans not understand?
Editor --
It is sad -- but not surprising -- that the president and his dwindling band of apologists have come out so strongly against the recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor finding the NSA warrantless wiretapping program to be in violation of the Constitution (Chronicle, 8/19). This president apparently has no use for the Constitution of the United States, and has never felt that he was bound by its restrictions on his power. Moreover, this ruling, if it is upheld (and it should be), would seem to open up the very real possibility of impeachment and criminal prosecution for his actions. No wonder the president disagrees with it.
What is sadder still is the attempt to paint supporters of this correct decision as unpatriotic and abetting terrorism. No one on either side of the debate disputes the fact that keeping tabs on suspected terrorists is necessary in this day and age; all we ask is that the president follow the law of the land and obtain the proper warrants to do so. Given the nature of the FISA court, this should be a simple enough process, and should in no way hinder any legitimate investigation that the NSA might want to carry out.
In other words, we want the president to not break the law and not violate the Constitution. What part of "warrantless" do Republicans not understand?
posted by Generik at 2:00 PM
<< Home