I was watching some political talking heads program on Fox this morning. The show itself was all right, I didn't it really slanted right as far as many think, except for one part. One guy, in discussing the commutation of the Libby sentence, in the same breath, connected it with the terrorist attacks in London and suggested a justification for the warrantless wiretaps, inviting a debate.
I have a piece to say on that issue, being, 1. the Fourth Amendment still exists, 2. there is a legitimate means for the Executive to obtain warrants with little to no probable cause (indeed the FISA courts are, by law, not allowed to gauge the substance of the FISA warrant applications, rather can only check to see if there are no procedural irregularities), and 3. the President has yet to show that using FISA, which allows for warrants AFTER THE FACT is unduly burdensome to such a point that it would justify violating the Supreme Law of the Land, other than to say "trust us."
I'm sorry, but the President, has burned through all his trust; there needs to be some substance to support it. Referring to all acts of insurgency as "Al Qaeda" without any evidence connecting them to Al Qaeda is not the way to do it. The attacks in London are evidence that wiretapping can be used to limit potential threats, but it does not suggest that I need to forfeit my right to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. And to the guy on Fox (I don't check any of their names), if you are so sold on winning the war on terror, enlist. Do your part. Don't tell me what rights I need to give up or defend against having stripped from me.
Sorry, I'm tired and grumpy.