LATEST LETTERS

National security

Wednesday, October 31 at 2:00 PM

Brian Stuckey of Denver writes:

Protecting our national security is vital, especially in time of war. The Senate “compromise” on the wiretap bill is exactly that. Privacy advocates demand “oversight” on foreign surveillance for the preservation of their “civil rights.” Yet, such demands are nothing less than a slapdash attempt to castigate the Bush Administration to advance its own political agenda. After all, one would be hard pressed to recall anyone decrying U.S. spy activity during the Clinton Administration. Defending our national security against the threat of terrorism is, without question, the greater concern. Allowing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to pass judgment is, in essence, a setback for President Bush and the successors who follow him. As the Wall Street Journal aptly contends, “No President has ever conceded that his ability to eavesdrop on a foreign enemy abroad should be second-guessed by judges.” If the President is serious about protecting the American people from the sinister plots of al-Qaeda, he will square off with the antiwar lawmakers and demand his Constitutional authority.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

You're right. Bush should be jailed because he is a 40+ years UCMJ-felon, AWOL, deserter and guilty of illegal separation and discharge. Can you say SuperMax or Ft Leavenworth, KS? USSC Affirative Action Judge Alito is in the same category. Both would make great prison wives.

Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on October 31, 2007 02:24 PM

Those who demand oversight of wiretapping on American citizens do indeed have a "political agenda." It's called the Constitution.

Posted by Romulus on October 31, 2007 02:31 PM

just tap Stuckey's phone

Posted by on October 31, 2007 02:45 PM

Can anyone validate the first poster actually served in any military branch? But that's an argument for a different day.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that the president does not ultimately have the authority to collect foreign intelligence -- here and abroad -- as he sees fit. Even as federal courts have sought to balance Fourth Amendment rights with security imperatives, they have upheld a president's "inherent authority" under the Constitution to acquire necessary intelligence for national security purposes. (Using such information for criminal investigations is different, since a citizen's life and liberty are potentially at stake.) Our Constitution, created a unitary chief executive. That chief executive could, in times of war or emergency, act with the decisiveness, dispatch and, yes, secrecy, (and without Congressional approval - there by sparing Senator Leahy the chance to leak the information) needed to protect the country and its citizens.

Posted by on October 31, 2007 03:04 PM

"Eat sh** and die, Stuckey."

Ah, so thoughtful and intelligent. I can see you were captain of the debate team.

Posted by Mac on October 31, 2007 08:06 PM

Our Constitution, created a unitary chief executive. That chief executive could, in times of war or emergency, act with the decisiveness, dispatch and, yes, secrecy,... needed to protect the country and its citizens.

...except of course, when that president is a Democrat.

Man, you 'patriot' types are going to have a hard time getting out of bed in the morning starting in January 2009. Good luck, chums.

Posted by on October 31, 2007 08:51 PM

All of the posts so far show very clearly that we Americans have not as a people decided whether we are at war or at peace.There's an awful lot of rhetoric flying around and people are killing each other steadily-with military equipment-in a number of places,but here at home there's no conscription,no internment of those profiled as dangerous,in fact no complaints about profiling period.There's been no suspension of habeas corpus,no security investigation of those who post on political blogs-although I betcha the Pentagon has somebody on the job reading this one once in awhile.
You can't figure out what to do if you don't know what to think.

Posted by Jimminy on October 31, 2007 11:13 PM

Jimmy, you said we Americans as a people have not decided whether we're at war or peace. I think it's easy - the corporate government is at war, the people are not. Some people support the corporate government, but they are not at war, just at their keyboards.

Posted by Mac on November 1, 2007 07:41 AM

You make my point,Mac,although I maybe should have said "nation" rather than "people". We continue to dither while opportunity slips away.

Posted by Jimminy on November 1, 2007 11:29 AM

Brian Stuckey emitted the following nonsense:

"After all, one would be hard pressed to recall anyone decrying U.S. spy activity during the Clinton Administration."

Because it was done with a warrant and therefore with the blessing of an impartial judge.

Brian, you truly are one of the most ignorant people who ever managed to scrawl out a fatuous diatribe.

Posted by Charles B. on November 1, 2007 08:24 PM

All rights and freedoms need to be suspended until we win this War! I suggest that all of everyone's personal wealth be confiscated and used to win this war. Personal wealth will be non-existent if the terrorists win. It is time for all real Patriots to stand up, put up and ante up!

Posted by George on November 2, 2007 01:22 PM