Kathleen Parker : Perhaps wiretaps are common sense

[mwb970]

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/109514

Thus, try as I might, I can't muster outrage over what appears to be a reasonable action in the wake of 9/11. As a rule, I'm as averse as anyone to having people "spying" on me. I'm also as devoted to protecting civil liberties as any other American.

But the privilege of debating our constitutional rights requires first that we be alive. If federal agents want to listen in on suspected terrorists as they plot their next mass murder, please allow me to turn up the volume.

Meanwhile, unless I start placing calls to Peshawar using such phrases as "I want my 72 virgins now," then I figure I'm safe to make my next hair appointment without fear of exposure. OK, fine, so I highlight.

I'm not making light of legitimate concerns about government power over private lives — vigilance is critical and debate worthwhile, but this seems like a manufactured controversy. It also reminds us yet again that America's decency may be her greatest weakness.

-------------------------------
My e-mail to Kathleen Parker ([e-mail]):
-------------------------------

It was heartbreaking to read your column excusing the president's illegal and unconstitutional spying on Americans. Does the president pay you to write these columns? You speak of this as a "manufactured controversy". Sorry, no. A manufactured controversy is Fox's "War On Christmas". A manufactured controversy is Bill Clinton lying about an inconsequential, private sex act. Ms. Parker, this is a real controversy, in which the American president has refused to avail himself of legal avenues to wiretap American citizens with a court order. (Remember those speeches in 2004? He reassured his listeners that the government does not wiretap Americans without a court order, something he had already been doing for two years at the very time he offered this reassurance.)

I agree that it is important to monitor communications in America that may involve terrorist plotting. But this is not the issue. Why, Ms. Parker, did the president not do this legally? Why must he operate outside (and above) the law? This is not the way America is supposed to work, however much you may dream of unlimited, unchecked presidential power. That is a characteristic of a dictatorship, monarchy, or fascist state, not a democracy. You do know the difference, don't you?

Your columns are usually off the mark in a benign, loopy way. This one was way off the mark in a frightening, dangerous way. I hope you see fit to change your mind as more facets of the president's disregard for our laws and our Constitution are revealed.

[Demeter]

1. Good Reply--Good Luck Getting Her To Understand It

It appears she has more hair than wit.

[leftchick]

2. she obviously does not know what data mining is...

I wish she would stick to mommy issues. :eyes:

[trotsky]

3. Excellent response to her.

I'm astonished at how readily *'s defenders are perfectly willing to surrender their freedom.

[ugarte]

4. She threw her lot in with Bush and the Religious Right from Day One

She's one of those columnists you don't even need to read to know what she's going to say. Always the same Republican line, very predictable.

[phantom power]

5. It's not about wiretapping. It's about illegal, unchecked wiretapping.

As usual, Digby puts it down:

The word wiretapping should always be preceded by the word illegal. That's the qualifier. Nobody thinks that wiretapping is always wrong and nobody knows from warrants. I have little doubt that most people assumed the government was wiretapping terrorists suspects and their suspected friends. What we didn't assume was that the president would consciously break the law to do it --- and that he believes himself immune from all laws during "wartime," (which he alone defines.)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_digbysblog_archive.html#113606019440763196

[C_U_L8R]

9. Exactly - Bush broke the law

Wiretapping is a neccessary tool law enforcement and intelligence
and there are very simple legal requirements in place that ensure
that illegal wiretapping doesn't take place. These safeguards are
also in place to protect the government - so it cannot be said that
they are breaking the law ...(or not).

Bush broke the law by not getting warrants for his wiretaps. He broke the law.
In such a situation... there is no accountability no judicial safeguard...
it's the wild west where they can bug anyone from John Kerry to your
Grandmom to the Freepers to Corporate Officers (for a little extra profit taking).
Who knows ? It's a Blackmailers paradise. That's why they must STOP BREAKING
THE LAW right away and release the names and rationale of everyone who was spied on.

Until Bush clears this up.... there will be a spectre of illicit activity over
the WHite House. They broke the law and the continue to break the law.
Whether or not congress acts.. it is an impeachable offense.. and we
mustn't tire of reminding them (which is Rove's hope).

Bush is breaking the law and must be held accountable.

[HereSince1628]

6. It's not the surviellance...its the unnecessary law breaking to do it

I've never in my life read so much "the ends justify the means" bullshit in the 50 years I've been able to read.

[tularetom]

7. "America's decency may be her greatest weakness"

Bullshit. America's greatest weakness is the tendency of her citizens, aided by a compliant press, to abandon their skepticism of government authority in favor of an unquestioning acceptance of executive actions. We were founded in an atmosphere of rebellion against tyranny, why do we so blindly tolerate it now?

[underpants]

10. But the privilege of debating our constitutional rights requires first tha

But the privilege of debating our constitutional rights requires first that we be alive.

--speaking of bullshit :eyes:

Kathleen Parker must have all the publisher's dirtiest secrets in a file or something. I can't imagine any other reason for her to be employed as an op/ed writer-she rarely actually makes a point.

[struggle4progress]

8. She's the twit who said the Democratic presidential candidates ..

.. "should all be lined up and shot." So I'd guess her grasp of basic civil liberties doesn't extend beyond supporting whatever shithead Republicans are currently in the news ...

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. I wrote and asked which of the other Bill of Rights she is willing to

sacrifice because she is scared. I also asked her if she will sign up to start fingering her neighbors for saying bad things about Smirky.