An interesting article, "Our Right to Security" (Debra Burlingame, Wall Street Journal, 30 January 2006, page A18) appeared recently. Ms Burlingame, a lawyer, is the sister of the pilot of AA flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.
The tagline is "Al Qaeda, not the FBI, is the greater threat to America."
Food for thought.
Joe Gwinn
Threats come in all manner of different forms and degrees.
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilence" - Patrick Henry
_-_-bear
Joseph Gwinn wrote in news:JoeGwinn- snipped-for-privacy@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
Well said sir.
Jim
I read it. I don't doubt that the senator believes, but it's just one man's opinion. There are other men with other opinions.
I've been following this story in the papers. It's a classic power struggle between the executive and legislative branches of the government, and will most likely be settled by the judicial branch, specifically the Supreme Court. Just as the Founders envisioned and intended: Checks and Balances.
What *is* clear is that the issue is far from cut and dried, despite the screaming and name-calling from various corners.
Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 05:47:41 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Dev Null quickly quoth:
One of the deceased pilot's wives is pissed so she condones this trash against the rest of us?
--------------------------------------------------- I drive way too fast to worry about my cholesterol. ---------------------------------------------------
Tomorrow morning the Judiciary Committee begins hearings on whether the White House broke the law when it wiretapped Americans without warrants. This is touted as a confrontation between branches of government but that's not really the case. It's really a matter of determining whether laws were broken or not. Naturally, the party accused of violating the law, the White House, denies any wrongdoing and has its attorneys saying as much. But it's up to the judicial branch to determine violations of law not the executive. According to the committee chairman, Arlen Specter, tapping the phones of Americans without the okay of the FISA court is a prima facie violation of the law, and it's clear that's what the White House did. Most legal scholars see this as pretty cut and dried. Nobody gave Bush the authority to do this and neither does the Constitution, as he asserts. The only question is whether anyone with any power is willing to stand up to the White House and say what they did is illegal. But since all the power is in the hands of republicans what are the chances they will ever say no to Bush regardless of what he does? So much for the concept of "checks and balances". It sounds good though.
Hawke
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.