Wednesday, January 25

Talking points you might have missed

image for this post found here.

Talking points the left has missed, this one concerning spying by the President:

One of the organizations suing the President over this wiretapping is the Center for Constitutional Rights. This is a group of radical lawyers who are defending the "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay. (Those commies at the ACLU are sticking their fingers in, too. You can use their site to write your Senator.)

The CCR lawyers are suing over this wiretapping, and gaining status in federal courts (that means the courts recognize they have a case to bring to trial), because it is assumed that their conversations with the prisoners and their families overseas (in those Arab countries just full of terrorists) were recorded by the government.

Could the White House be looking for evidence to use against the current enemy combatants? Could this be why our attorney general is very supportive of the legality of this spy program?

As one of the CCR lawyers points out,

"The mere existence of the program harms CCR and our attorneys because it serves to inhibit their ability to institute and effectively litigate these suits."

In other words, people who need to talk to their lawyers might not speak freely if they feel the people prosecuting them are listening in.

Now why would anyone think that about our President?

Because it's happened so many times before. J. Edgar Hoover collected evidence against everybody in the name of "national security." The FBI even went so far, with their COINTELPRO program, to infiltrate anti-Vietnam war groups and spy on them from within to weaken their ability to protest the war. And don't get me started about Nixon. We old fart lefties love to get started about Nixon.

Shh...Blue Gal's talking panties again!

Anti-war organizations today are being spied on, too.

The problem with government spying on its own citizens, is it requires vigilance to combat it. Get busy with the talking points, bloggers.

1 comment:

  1. I thought the attorey general was just supportive because he was a yes-man. Who knew he could understand such complicated strategy?


I really look forward to hearing what you have to say. I do moderate comments, but non-spam comments will take less than 24 hours to appear... Thanks!