Who am I?
Christian. Skeptic. Ponderer. Sold on Western Civilization. Background in engineering and software. Rational, but not rationalist.
I'm a Hugh-inspired, long-tail blogger.
I Value
Informs my values.
News
Blog Search
Posts On This Page:
Archives
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- February 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- October 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- July 2010
- February 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- February 2013
Look closer. Think harder. Choose the sound argument over the clever one.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Got Their Headline
USA Today, front page above the fold: "Wiretap program illegal"
Powerline, yesterday: "...the ACLU and the Democrats got the headlines they wanted from one of their own."
[T]he federal courts have held on a number of occasions that the President has the constitutional power under Article II to order warrantless surveillance for national security purposes. The Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Circuits have so held, as has the special FISA Court of Review. And those cases dealt with domestic warrantless intercepts, as opposed to the international communications that fall within the NSA program.
Consistent with unanimous precedent in the Federal Courts of Appeal, I would expect the 6th Circuit to reverse Judge Taylor's ruling and uphold the NSA program.
If that happens, we'll see if it comes with its own front-page headline.
The judge's decision analyzed by Powerline and surveyed by Patterico.
Related Moment of Irony: looking for the article on USAToday's web-site (not posted as of 6am), I find this story's headline instead: 9/11 panel heads: FBI lags on promised improvements.
Update, 8/23: Via JustOneMinute:
[Ann Althouse writes] It suggests that there are no good legal arguments against the program, just petulance and outrage and antipathy toward President Bush. It helps those who have been arguing for years about result-oriented, activist judges.
He notes the New York Times' about-face, and the judge's potential conflict of interest with the ACLU. More headlines than they bargained for.
Comments:
(Please keep in mind that each commenter's opinions are only his/her own.)
As for the headline. You'll get yours too I'm sure. The idea that the media is liberal is so 20th century.
I'm glad you recognize the Soviet Union for the repressive state it was.
MM: "... then lose some of those freedoms to the executive branch without a fight."
The freedom we're talking about is for people in the U.S. to make phone calls to al Qaida.
If Powerline is right, "unanimous precedent" suggests the executive branch already has the right, so no freedom lost. No step taken down any slippery slope.
MM: "Patriotism involves making some tough choices sometimes. Could we be potentially less safe without the wire tapping? Sure."
I agree, though I have to say thinking in terms of "patriotism" sounds very strange to my ears. For example, I've never once asked myself, "what's the patriotic thing to do here?" Do you really think like that?
MM: The idea that the media is liberal is so 20th century.
In fact, the landmark work on the topic was first published in the 21st century.
Let's also keep in mind that powerline might NOT be right. Have you found any documentation of how many actual al Qaida links have been actually explored through the wire tapping program? In fact, what are our assurances that only Al Qaida conversations were examinined? So far, we've not been offered any proof of this at all. Some have suggested that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of phone calls have been monitored. Wow - that's a lot of al Qaida members huh?
Yes, I actually do think in terms of "what's the patriotic thing to do here". What would our founding fathers have approved of in this situation? Why are we concerned more about who might be getting the "leg up" in the propaganda war rather than dead human beings? How can we condemn Iran for supplying war materials to Hezbollah and then have every bomb landing on the Lebanese people saying "Made in America"? I'm sure you can try to scramble for justification, but it's really just a simple matter of rampant hipocricy. The difference between a terrorist and a commando is that one as a bomb but no airplane. When we bomb, knowing the likelihood of civilian casualties, and bomb anyway - how is that not terrorism in the eyes of those being bombed?
MM: "even most conservatives don't buy the media bias thing anymore"
You lead a more insulated life than you realize, and don't understand the appeal to popularity fallacy.
MM: "Some have suggested that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of phone calls have been monitored."
You should carefully define "monitored:" the contents heard vs. the call record itself data-mined?
MM: "Why are we concerned more about who might be getting the "leg up" in the propaganda war rather than dead human beings?"
Because in the long run, many more dead human beings will result.
MM: "I'm sure you can try to scramble for justification, but it's really just a simple matter of rampant hipocricy."
In fact, that's your scramble for justification. It's really just a simple matter of muddled thinking (or morality). I hope a serious contemplation of the Geneva Conventions would help you (the drastically abridged version here). Contemplate organizations like Hezbollah that take what those conventions forbid and use them as an insruction manual.
Post a Comment
<< Home