LA & 2002
So today the president - he must have read yesterday's blog in this space - reveals that survelliance prevented a planned attack in 2002 on the tallest building on the west coast, the library building in LA.
Putting aside for the moment the substance - the question of whether unauthorized, illegal eavesdroping is required to prevent such attacks - what galls me about this administration is their bald-faced, in-your-face adolescent sticking its tongue out at those who challenge them. You just know they're not serious strategic thinkers when their attitude is all about making their opposition look bad. Maybe it's too much to ask that our leaders behave as adults, but I still do.
Now, as to the substance. If it is true that they stopped terrorists from flying a plane into the LA building I am grateful. Wihtout knowing enough to hazard an opinion, I'd still guess that the network of global intelligence uncovers at least the intention or wish of people to make mayhem, many times a day. When the threat level is high enough to say it would have happened without some intervention and apprehension of those planning it, is also a judgment.
The fact remains that we have laws that provide for acting under the gravest and most urgent matters. I doubt this is the first president to act without legal authority, but he may be the first to claim the right.
If the president can act as he pleases, regardless of or contrary to law, then what it is we say we are defending is a sham. I am enough of a realist to understand that a president might contravene a law under dire circumstance, and if discovered, have to face the consequences. I could even consider such an action brave and laudable. But to say the Constitution provides for that, or that he has some unwritten authority, is, in its own way, as dangerous to our nation as a terrorist attack.
I am unimpressed by the Democrats use of the issue; trying to embarrass the president in order to gain votes. Where are the voices of true patriots who understand what it is about this nation and its laws that make it worth defending?
Putting aside for the moment the substance - the question of whether unauthorized, illegal eavesdroping is required to prevent such attacks - what galls me about this administration is their bald-faced, in-your-face adolescent sticking its tongue out at those who challenge them. You just know they're not serious strategic thinkers when their attitude is all about making their opposition look bad. Maybe it's too much to ask that our leaders behave as adults, but I still do.
Now, as to the substance. If it is true that they stopped terrorists from flying a plane into the LA building I am grateful. Wihtout knowing enough to hazard an opinion, I'd still guess that the network of global intelligence uncovers at least the intention or wish of people to make mayhem, many times a day. When the threat level is high enough to say it would have happened without some intervention and apprehension of those planning it, is also a judgment.
The fact remains that we have laws that provide for acting under the gravest and most urgent matters. I doubt this is the first president to act without legal authority, but he may be the first to claim the right.
If the president can act as he pleases, regardless of or contrary to law, then what it is we say we are defending is a sham. I am enough of a realist to understand that a president might contravene a law under dire circumstance, and if discovered, have to face the consequences. I could even consider such an action brave and laudable. But to say the Constitution provides for that, or that he has some unwritten authority, is, in its own way, as dangerous to our nation as a terrorist attack.
I am unimpressed by the Democrats use of the issue; trying to embarrass the president in order to gain votes. Where are the voices of true patriots who understand what it is about this nation and its laws that make it worth defending?
posted by Blayney at 8:53 AM
1 Comments:
Despite the appropriation of the LA story into the spying controversy, we ought still to be struggling for why such a terrorist act was even planned. How can there be any progress toward peace with the Islamic world if the West continues to be disprespectful of the Prophet? Our commentators say that the huge reaction to the objectionable pictures being published in Denmark and France -- and yes, even in a couple of newspapers in the US -- is just due to religious extremism and will eventually die down as reason takes over. What would the reaction have been if the same kind of insult were aimed at the Jews or, yes, the Christians? The offending publishers would be immediately under attack as being anti-Semitic or perhaps the Anti-Christ. Any attempt to justify such behavior in the name of "freedom of the press" would be summarily rejected and the offending organizations prosecuted for bias, etc. The necessity in today's world for appreciation of all faiths would seem to be a priority, yet this is obviously not widely accepted. Could such insenstivity signal the end of respect for our faith too? In the Qur'an, the Prophet continually warns againtst those who "reject faith". Thus, the followers of Islam could hardly be expected to act benignly in the present situation.
Post a Comment
<< Home