Letters to the Editor
Scientician
Published Letters: 533 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Jake:
[Read the article: Comey's testimony raises new and vital questions about the NSA scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What limits his behaviour then? If he can break the law at will to "protect americans" who gets to oversee that he really is making reasonable judgments about what is needed to "protect"?
I mean, how aggressive should the defence be? Killing every Muslim would really solve the problem wouldn't it? Or locking them all up. Japanese Internment camps are regarded as a severe blight on FDR.
Finally, what makes you think the US faces anywhere near the threat posed by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union?
The combined military power of every majority Muslim country on earth couldn't seriously threaten the United States.
Even if terrorists got a nuke, that wouldn't comprise an existential threat to the entire country.
Action and reaction must be in accordance. FDR was facing a meglomaniac who had proved capable of conquering the entire world left unchecked. Osama can't even show his face in public lest a cruise missile find him.
It's all hype.
Finally, you seem to accept prima facie the notion that it is necessary to break the law in order to protect americans. Why? What necessitates this? Why can't the programs be under warrants? And if not, why isn't the president requesting actual changes to FISA to make the programs legal with solid rationale and good example cases of where the law would actually result in undue risk to US lives.
Just because he says so is not good enough for us. Accepting the statements of leaders blindly on faith is something fascists do. It is the antithesis of a democratic value (small d). Bush is ruining everything that makes the US worth defending in his defence of it. The ultimate Pyrrhic victory.
-
Shorter WaPo:
[Read the article: What will be done about James Comey's revelations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"If only there was some sort of large organization that could reach many people with information that had the wherewithal to alert the public to these many problems. Perhaps this organization could print the information on dead trees and distribute copies to major cities across America in exchange for money. Actually, sounds like an interesting business idea. Someone should look into it."
It is funny to see WaPo write an editorial as they were some hapless bystander with no ability to impact events imploring the mighty and powerful to take action on this front.
I suppose it's as close to an apology as we'll see from Hiatt. "Damn media! Why did you ignore this important story?"
Keep raging against the machine Hiatt.
-
Impeachment isn't the only thing....
[Read the article: What will be done about James Comey's revelations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know we would all like to see Bush impeached, removed from office and barred from employment with the Federal government ever again.
However, that he might escape that fate is not to say other fates could not await him. Jacques Chirac, departing President of France has used Presidential Immunity to avoid prosecution for years now, but will soon face the music. Ditto for Italy's Silvio Berlusconi.
So that Bush and Gonzo might evade justice to the end of their terms is not the end of this fight.
I think it is time to say "Never again" to this level of corruption. We allowed Nixon and Reagan to get away with it for the most part. We must hound Bush and Cheney to the ends of the earth for their crimes. Justice and prosecution must find them. To hell with the "let it go" crowd.
So while we pursue them vociferously today, we should be pressuring the Democratic presidential candidates to pursue these legal issues when they attain office (no point asking the same of the GOP). Let it look like sour grapes or vengeance. It needs doing and damn the naysayers.
-
Derbig Mooser:
[Read the article: What will be done about James Comey's revelations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are engaging in a tactic that Greenwald frequently complains of. Supposing your views are shared by the majority.
Democrats were prepared to impeach Nixon in 1974. He resigned to flee that inevitability. Result? Near historical majorities in both houses of Congress for the dems in 1974 elections, and a Democratic president in 1976.
Some "kick in the nuts" that was.
Or do you have evidence that voters will be mad at democrats for impeaching Bush?