Saved by the Court!

I just heard on the news that the recent Terrorist plot to bomb 10 planes was brought to the attention of British officials by listening in on some calls that came from terrorists. While I think that we should do everything we can to protect the privacy of US citizens, I don't think we should protect that privacy for our enemies at home and abroad. I think it is absurd to grant privacy rights to enemies of the United States who wish to kill and to destroy us. It is frightening to think that there are many who believe we should "play nicely" with the terrorists and respect their "rights" to free speech as they plot to kill us and their "rights" to privacy as they communicate these plots. It boggles my mind that the British are more open to using tools such as wire tapping to stop terrorists from killing people than we are here in the U.S. It further boggles my mind that this recent ruling from the Appeals Court may make it easier for terrorists to plan, communicate, and execute terrorism in the U.S. People in the U.S. need to wake up and understand that there are people out there who want to see our country destroyed. They are not innocent little victims who will calm down if we just listen to them and change our evil ways. They will not befriend us. But frighteningly, there are many who want to handcuff our government from protecting us and may have gotten their way in this latest ruling. If the terrorist plot to bomb 10 planes would have occurred after this latest ruling and in the US instead of in the UK, the call that gave them away may not have been intercepted and instead of having news stories about a thwarted terror plot, we'd have news stories about the tragic loss of thousands of lives...and in response I'd (sarcasticly) say, "at least we waited for a warrant." That would make it all better.

It is laughable to me that we need to have a court's permission to spy on our enemies. It is a sham that our President is required to take an oath to protect and defend our country and then be expected to abide by silly rules that tell him that he cannot spy on our enemies because they have rights to free speech and to privacy. While I think it would be a good idea to get warrants when possible to assist with prosecution, I pray and hope the U.S. continues to listen in on the terrorists in order to stop them from executing their plans. I just heard on the news that numerous courts have held (for decades) that the President has the authority to conduct warrantless wire taps on international calls for the purpose of safety and security.

When are people going to learn that the Fathers of our country fought for the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that life is listed first for a reason? Without the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not exist. If one is dead, one cannot enjoy liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If one is dead, one cannot enjoy the right to privacy or free speech. But I am alive and have privacy and free speech. And if I call Osama Bin Laden on my phone then I pray to God someone is listening in. But I don't call Osama so I have nothing to worry about. Nobody is listening in on my calls. Sometimes I'm not even listening to my calls myself. But when people start getting killed by terrorists repeatedly in our country and people start talking, saying, "Isn't this terrible? Why can't anything be done about this?" I'll laugh at them and sarcasticly say, "Come on now, they have constitutional rights to conspire and communicate their terrorism just like we have constitutional rights to conduct our business. Business is business. What do you expect us to do?" It will be a sad day when Osama gets his hands on nuclear weapons and we don't know about it because we guarantee his rights to free speech and to privacy.

I wonder about all those communications that were intercepted in World Wars I, II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and both of the wars in Iraq. Did we have a warrant to intercept those communications? We had all kinds of spies in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. I sure hope we had a warrant to spy on them because of course, all human beings have a right to privacy and to free speech. What about the Cuban missile crisis? Didn't we fly over Cuba and take pictures? My gosh! I sure hope we obtained a warrant first. We have satellites taking detailed pictures of what's going on in North Korea. Did we get the North Koreans' permission first? Do we have a warrant? News reports are saying they may have nukes now. I hope the U.S. government knows for sure whether or not they have nukes but I'm not so sure our own government knows more than the news because of the silliness out there that insists that we respect our enemies rights to speech and to privacy. Oh, it doesn't apply because they are not U.S. citizens? What about the Civil War? I sure hope the North and South got warrants before spying on each other. Where is the outcry and the demand for retroactive impeachment of Abe Lincoln for spying on U.S. citizens? What if U.S. citizens were working or travelling where we've had spy planes or satellites collect data? Shouldn't we first get a warrant?

Spying sounds unconstitutional to me according to the latest court ruling. Maybe we should retroactively impeach all our Presidents who had spy programs. What if we are invaded by a foreign country? Will we need warrants because some satellite pictures will show the activities of U.S. citizens? Will we need warrants to listen in on communications because some of the communications may be from U.S. citizens? Or maybe pictures are ok but listening in on conversations are bad. Should we really have spies infiltrate terror groups? We might violate terror groups' right to privacy. Perhaps the spies should request a warrant each time they interact with our enemies.

I'm guessing that the NY Times is looking for ways to get information on these warrants so they can print, once again, for all the world to see, all our strategies for dealing with terrorism. But hey, it is their right to sabotage all our efforts to combat terrorism. It's their First Amendment right. When the news media finds a way to unclassify FISA court warrants under the Freedom of Information Act (since our spy programs and other classified programs obviously do not get any guarantees of privacy) or some other loophole, they will have plenty to print since we now need a warrant to spy. This will be done regardless of the loss of life and the loss of years of work to provide security at home and abroad.

What if I call someone in China to discuss a Christian mission trip and the Communist party listens in? I now have a RIGHT to privacy on international calls. I can sue my country for not ensuring that my rights are protected. I can't imagine all the lawsuits that are going to come from this. And how in the world will the U.S. guarantee my RIGHT to privacy on international calls? Should the U.S. force China to respect my rights? That may require military action. But we can't spy on our enemies unless we obtain a warrant so we will most likely lose in a war with China. But at least I have my (useless) rights!

Some of the people in this country think they are so enlightened and superior by "sticking to the principles." But they lack common sense and an understanding of the realities of the world we live in. I'll come right out and say it, I think its stupid that we cannot spy on our enemies without a warrant whether they are at home or abroad. If you want to bog everything down by asking stupid questions like, "well how do we define our enemies?" you can be ridiculous and do so but please step out of the way and let people with common sense handle things. It's really simple. Those who want to kill us and to destroy our stuff in an effort to cripple or destroy our country are our enemies.

There are several exceptions to our Bill of Rights. Despite having the right to free speech, teachers can tell their students about their personal lives unless it is about religion. One cannot yell "Fire!" in a public place when there is no fire. One cannot slander another person. In many instances one may not make statements which are offensive. Despite having a Constitutional right to freedom of religion, a teacher or in many cases, students, may not engage in prayer or carry a Bible at school. Despite the right to bear arms, we are restricted in which arms we may bear, and in how we bear them. Despite having a right to life, parents have a constitutional right to murder their children prior to birth. I obviously disagree with some of the exceptions that have been made to our Bill of Rights (I don't think the murder of the unborn and restrictions on public prayer should be allowed) and I also agree with some of them (I think we should restrict people from using racial slurs in public places). Whether I agree with the exceptions or not, we have exceptions to our rights. We have a right to privacy but there should be exceptions to this as well. Privacy rights supposedly protect a woman's right to choose to kill her unwanted baby. I strongly believe an exception should be made to a woman's privacy rights so that her unborn child would be protected from being ripped apart by sharp instruments or from chemicles that burn the baby to death. Our government should be able to spy in order to protect us from our enemies. Anything obtained other than information pertaining to national security should be unconstitutional, and should be protected. Some will be silly and ask, "What is national security? Does speaking out against the government constitute a security risk?" Again, I am fine with the boggers wasting everyone's time by asking these questions over a Cappucino at Starbucks with their friends but please step aside and let people with common sense handle this. National security is concerned with stopping people from killing us and breaking our stuff in such a way as to cripple or destroy our country. Disagreeing with President Bush or Senator Hillary Clinton and voicing such disagreements is so obviously not a matter of national security. If you wish to tell your friend that you think Hillary Clinton's hair looks ratty or that George Bush's diction sounds uneducated you have nothing to worry about. But if you call up your terrorist friends in Afghanistan to ask them what the plan is for you to asisst with a plot detonate a nuclear bomb in our country you should have something to worry about. It is very simple.

When Hezbollah, al qaeda, Iran, and North Korea get nukes - and they will - I hope we know about it BEFORE it is too late. Some people may end up being unnecessarily distressed when the bombs go off and the US government was too busy dinking around in courts rather than spying on our enemies.

Basically the latest (foolish) court decision about the warrantless wire taps provides our enemies with constitutional protections to conspire to kill us and to communicate their conspiracies with one another. Well done!