[RACooper]

Originally posted by hoosier
Pretty simply:

1 - we're at war (most of today's Dem critics voted to go to war)

The US has been at war in the past, and yet at least made an effort to respect the rule of law and judical procedures then... why not now?

2 - Bush is the commander in chief, directing the war

Gee I never knew that that infalibility was a trait confered upon the Commander in Chief during his swearing in Just because he's Commander in Chief doesn't mean that he is infalible or above the law....

3 - we've already lost 3,000 civilians on 9/11

Yes, yes, I realise that... and I do realise invoking 9/11 is a favourite Administration debate tactic; but what does that have to do with circumventing US laws? Others have died in the past, what is so very different this time that rights and freedoms are subverted?

4 - if somebody in the US is communicating with the leaders of the 9/11 attackers, I'm glad Bush is listening in and taking action to keep us safe.
If he needs more listeners, and asks for volunteers, he wouldn't be disappointed.

I think you missed the point - I have no problem with the monitoring of people that threaten a nation's security... but I do have a problem when oversight is taken out of the hands of judical or legal authorities - you know checks & balances.

5 - every war brings some limits on rights, as a lot of Japanese-heritage people in WWII learned during their days in internment camps out in the desert.

Yes, yes... and the vandalization and burning of German owned establishments in WWII and the Great War - and yet Germans weren't sent to internment camps enmass were they?

I have serious doubts about how much was motivated by security concerns and how much was motivate by racism...

6 - the FISA court, supposedly set up to monitor intelligence efforts, has jumped the track. Prior to 9/11 for 20 years, the FISA court did not modify or reject a single warrant request. In 2003/04, the court did "substantive modifications" to 173 requests for warrants, and rejected six outright. Now FISA court judges are granting anonymous interviews to the NYTimes and WashPost involving themselves in upcoming events/requests/briefings.

So the fact that the judical oversight system rejected or modified warrants is grounds for not going along with it any more? I gotta say that is a distrubing vien of logic you're following... perhaps there were very sound legal reasons why FISA rejected/modified warrant requests. The fact that these things did happen should not be the reason to circumvent judical proceedures or oversight - in fact I'd wonder why FISA was concerned about the rejected/modified warrants... and moreso about the ones not brought before them.

7 - as long as Bush is president, I'm confident we will not sit around waiting for the next terrorist attack.

Fair enough... but there are legal ways to go about it without sacrificing rights and freedoms on the altar of "security"