Why Democrats Can’t Be Trusted with National Security

Alan at Idablue left the following in the comments of a recent post:

It seems your argument boils down to “It doesn’t affect me so it’s not big deal. I’ve got nothing to hide.” It may be that we should choose to trade off that bit of privacy, but that’s not the choice we’ve made to date.

My argument is actually that a list of phone numbers doesn’t invade anyone’s privacy. Mark Levin made the point that the phone numbers do not belong to the Customers, but rather to the phone company, which voluntarily turned these records over.

You see, it’s not the wiretapping that is such an issue here. It’s that the administration is violating the law. This administration believes it is above the law. Our law is quite clear; this type of intercept is a search that requires a warrant. Read a few criminal cases about “pen register” cases and you’ll that they require probable cause and a warrant. A warrant is easier to get for a pen register case than for a listening case, but still required.

No, again, the information was obtained from the phone company voluntarily. It was given by the people who controlled the information. It is not wiretapping, its not the administration stepping out of bounds. My argument further is that it doesn’t violate the spirit of the Constitution as I understand that document.

The administration justifies its actions by saying we’re in a war and it will take steps to keep us safe. Well fine, declare war, identify the enemy, and tell us what victory looks like. A war on terror is not a war that can be won. Terror is a tactic, not an enemy or objective.

So the problem is that the war without end will justify suspensions of constitutional rights without end. If Congress wants to amend law to give the President this power without end then let them. But until it does the President is violating the law. I know you agree that we are supposed to have a government of laws, not of people.

I would agree that war on terror is a war on a tactic. So, instead, lets call it “The War on Islamic Terrorists Who Hate Us Want to Kill Us.” We can declare war as an act of Congress and when they’ve either quit or are dead, we win.

If you don’t think fight a war on Islamic Terrorists who hate us and want to kill us than say that, but don’t play a semantical game.

Do you support the 2nd amendment? Do you know why that’s there? It because the founders wanted the citizens to have the means to rise up against their government if the government becomes tyrannical. A built-in distrust of government. As one of your guest bloggers said, I think you trust the government too much. If President Hillary was tapping your phone would you think it was just fine? Are you being thoughtful or just support the Republican administration?

Of course, I support the 2nd Amendment and I know why its there. And the truth is that’s why we still need the 2nd Amendment. Now, I don’t trust the government too much and I’ve called this Administration on the carpet time and time again. If you’ve read my blog any length of time, George W. Bush doesn’t get a free ride around here. I’ve not been defending every chapter and verse of the Patriot Act, but I’m also not going to expect our nation to fight a war on Islamic Terrorists who hate us and want to kill us with our hands tied behind our back.

The truth is if we had a President Hillary or President Gore, they’d pursue the same powers. I believe there’s a greater potential for misuse, based on the Filegate Scandal. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Commander-in-Chief whoever they are needs that tool to protect our nations’s security.

How many 9-1-1′s do you want to see happen for the sake of invented rights like?: