Continuing on the issue theme, we moved on to issue number two, domestic wiretapping. Should Congress authorize the President to wiretap without warrants in the War on Terror?
What's interesting about the debate on this one is that a fair number of those speaking against were doing so on the grounds that the President already has this power, and having Congress "authorize" it diminishes the power of the Executive as Commander-in-Chief in time of war. But I would honestly say that more of the dissenters were concerned with civil liberties (a lot of the Dorchester crowd are libertarian-leaning Republicans).
I was so passionate about this that I wrote down what I was going to say so I could post it verbatim on my blog:
This issue isn't about gathering evidence for criminal trials; it's about war. We are at war, and I want the United States to win this war. I spent six years in military intelligence, so I know a thing or two about winning wars. Do you want to know how you win wars? Let me tell you:
You win wars by finding your enemies and killing your enemies. You do not win wars by granting your enemies special rights and liberties!
I hold in my hand a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America. I have read this great document front to back and back to front and do you know what? Nowhere in this document can I find a single clause that says "terrorists at war with the United States have a special fundamental right to use our own national communications infrastructure to facilitate their war and help them kill Americans."
The Fourth Amendment is about evidence for criminal prosecutions, not the defense of our Nation in time of war. Support our President and recognize the need for gathering intelligence against our terrorist enemies!
As I was at the microphone with my Constitution in hand, I noticed Jim Feldkamp in the audience looking at me and nodding approvingly...
One argument made against wiretaps came from those who fear the government abusing this power under the rule of a future democRat President like Hillary Clinton. My argument against this shibboleth is that the only real solution is not to give our President power, but to make sure you don't elect anyone like Hillary Clinton! After all, wasn't the Clinton administration in charge when over 80 innocent people, mostly women and children, were burned beyond recognition in their Waco church? Do you really think that silly things like laws will protect you when people like this are in power?
In the end, the vote was 164-110 in favor. Considering that a chunk of the no-votes were on the principle that the President already has this power inherently, I'd say an even stronger majority of those present supported the President with their vote.
Recent Comments