I have a "reasonable suspicion" that he's never even read the Constitution
Well I'm flummoxed. President Bush believes that we need spying--surveillance, rather--to protect the American people from terrorists. Then why did the Administration strike down a 2002 Senate proposal allowing FBI agents to obtain surveillance warrants more easily? (The agents would only need to have "reasonable suspicion" instead of "probable cause" when dealing with non-citizens with Al Qaida ties.)
Where's the logic in that? That's like breaking into a used book store in the dead of night and stealing from the "FREE" cart.
Everything that I've read suggests that it isn't that hard to get a warrant from the FISA court. You can even get one after-the-fact. And as if that weren't enough, this proposed law would've allowed the FBI to spy on pretty much anybody who's mom might've gone to high school with a terrorist. What more do these guys need?
posted by Marie Antoinette at 4:19 PM
2 Comments:
EXACTLY. They rejected in 2002 just the thing that would pretty much exonerate the shit they're trying to pull now.
Of course he hasn't. I bet if you put him to the test, there's a fair chance he wouldn't even know what century it was written in, or who the primary authors were. Not without some prompting, anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home