Ok, now you'd think that the Democrats would be a GREAT position to fix these usurpations but no, they get scared because they don't want to seem "soft on defense": (excerpts)
Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war, they remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.
“Many members continue to fear that if they don’t support whatever the president asks for, they’ll be perceived as soft on terrorism,” said William Banks, a professor who specializes in terrorism and national security law at Syracuse University and who has written extensively on federal wiretapping laws.
Caroline Frederickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she was troubled by the Democrats’ acceptance of broad, blanket warrants for the security agency rather than the individualized warrants traditionally required by the intelligence court.
“The Democratic leadership, philosophically, is with us,” Ms. Frederickson said. “But we need to help them realize the political case, which is that Democrats will not be in danger if they don’t reauthorize this Protect America Act. They’re nervous.
“There’s a ‘keep the majority’ mentality, which is understandable,” she said, “But we think they’re putting themselves in more danger by not standing on principle.”
The Democrats seem to be afraid of talk radio propaganda that would try to make them seem less than patriotic, less "American." Here's how that lying whore Hoekstra put it:
“By not including retroactive liability protection,” said Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee,
“Democrats are trying to resolve their differences with the administration on the backs of patriotic American companies that only wanted, and continue to want, to help keep our nation safe.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment