The decision to grant such broad surveillance authority is bad for democracy, violates individual privacy and deals a crushing blow to civil liberties. Without oversight, it opens the door to abuse. And it is unjustified -- undermining the very democracy that the war on terror supposedly seeks to protect.
» Back to full entry
» Back to full entry


All Comments (6)
mutualist tipsiness subinfer swellishness emblemology sulfionide fovea halohydrin
Backsberg Estate Cellars
http://www.jubb.uk.com
December 20, 2007 3:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 20, 2007 15:24
tagala hemistater uxorial louisa unlovableness pica pedaliter lepismidae
Department of Geosciences
http://www.20belowvideo.com/
December 17, 2007 4:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 17, 2007 04:50
Mr.Gumede is late out of the gate. In point of fact,warrants targeting persons ''reasonably suspected of being outside the United States'',must be overseen and determined by FISA. Not the Attorney General. Then again,a six-month sunset provision has been placed on the new legislation by the Democrats. I would worry less about this and worry more about what South Africas pals are doing up the road in Zimbabwe where actual,vice alleged,''crushing blows to civil liberties''are being carried out on an hour-by-hour basis by the dictatorial Mugabe.
August 13, 2007 6:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 13, 2007 18:29
Mr.Gumede is late out of the gate. In point of fact,warrants targeting persons ''reasonably suspected of being outside the United States'',must be overseen and determined by FISA. Not the Attorney General. Then again,a six-month sunset provision has been placed on the new legislation by the Democrats. I would worry less about this and worry more about what South Africas pals are doing up the road in Zimbabwe where actual,vice alleged,''crushing blows to civil liberties''are being carried out on an hour-by-hour basis by the dictatorial Mugabe.
August 13, 2007 6:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 13, 2007 18:29
I beg to differ with Deb and wholeheartedly agree with the author. This Administration has been playing the fear card often and with success.
You seem to be arguing that suspension of rights is necessary. Under that pretext you would forfeit them forever as long as there was risk. And unless you believe that all extremist activity can be wiped out, there will never be a reason to stop this.
And I have to question why oversight of spy activities is suddenly such a terrible thing? Do you not want controls in place to ensure that no abuses occur? And you may be naive enough to believe that won't happen. Go check out the abuses that have been published in previous reports.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be safe but you have to ask if you are willing to give up the very liberties at risk just so the government can do whatever they want. Do you trust government THAT much?? A simple review of history will tell you what happens with unchecked power. Believe me when I say you do NOT want to leave anything in the hands of government without oversight. This has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican. There are endless examples how easily abuses come into play.
Oversight is critical under all circumstances. It's too easy to turn your head and say okay because you don't want to be attacked. I would caution you that these powers have been unavailable and yet no attacks occurred. So how critical is this really?
If you truly love what America stands for then stand up for what America stands for: Democracy. It does not stand for unchecked power, torture and prisoner abuse. Rights for all must be protected.
August 13, 2007 1:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 13, 2007 13:51
This is a special folly. The article is skewed as it does not address the US security concerns. Nobody is praising the wiretapping issue. But it is a necessary thing to do in hard times.
The author should get a grip !
August 13, 2007 1:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 13, 2007 13:08