drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,
drieuxster
drieuxster

How Warrentless Do We Need To Be?

Besides the usual aghast that the white house would be blabbing openly about it's decision to not get warrents for it's wire tap strategy, hence confirming the facts, but also violating their own rhetoric about the 'leak' being a threat to national security, and putting americans at risk, there is that question of How warrentless do we need to be?</blockquote>
There currently is that little rider of the 'drilling in the artic wild life' that is attached to the DOD Budget - which should have been out before the end of the fiscal year. But that is just one more in the fiasco of the current one party rule. But it does raise the question of why Sen. Stevens needs congress to change the law? Couldn't the Fine Sentor merely ask the president to press a double super secret explanation that this is a part of the WhateverOnWhomever and therefore the law in this matter is irrelevant. You Know, to stop the terrorists?

Yes, I think most folks are wondering why Sen. Stevens needs to get the drilling in the arctic wild life ammendment in the DOD budget, since, well, gosh, wasn't the DOD budget suppose to be about national defense stuff? Hence clearly if drilling arctic wild life is a part of the National Security, then clearly it should be something that does not actually require any constraints of law, now should it? Hence the War-President merely needs to assert
Thus It Is Written
Thus It Shall Be!
in his best Yul Bryner Modality. { Oh dear, that means that we have to figure out who is doing Charleton Heston's Role as Moses... And yes, some folks would think that doing the Pharoh might not be in the best interest of America. }

Given the Rumours that Bill Frist has chickened out on the Nuclear Option to prevent the opposition from Fillibustering the DOD Budget, and the fact that there are fewer than the required 60 votes to close the threatened Buster. It would seem that now more than ever, there is the need for the Warrentless Approach to Drilling Arctic Wild Life.

Or it could be that there is just not the will to consider Drilling Arctic Wild Life a part of the National Security that only the War-President Can Save, so that americans are free from the growing threat of Arctic Wild Life! { Could it be that Arctic Wild Life really were not a part of the Iraqi Flying Saucer Assault On Our White Christian America! Tell Me It ISN'T SO...}

I can appreciate that there are Panicky Americans who want the Great War-President to have unlimited power and to be above the law, so that he can do what ever it will be that will make them feel all warm and fuzzy. But what if keeping america safe means that americans will have to live with, well, law. That the safety which having the law means to all americans is far more important than decreasing the threat of WhateverOnWhomever.

Perchance we may wish to return to that harder challenge
Roper: So, now you give the devil himself the benefit of law?

More: Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get at the devil?

Roper: Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

More: Oh? And when the last law was down and the devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide...the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws coast to coast, man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down, ...do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I would give the devil the benefit of law for my own safety.


[ cf Man For All Season ]
Since it is not the first time in history that we have wondered about How Warrentless Do We Need to Be.


Subscribe

  • What if we had to be a nation of laws

    First off a h/t to a dear fiend, for Crackdown on herd-share farms over certification which is such a classical attack of the FeeMarketeers meets…

  • why do folks forget the clinton years?

    Essentially I agree with When The Magic Starts in that there is much that will need to be undone from the failure of the deregulation game that was…

  • Oil does not grow on trees.

    Let us start from the premise that fossil fuels are not like renewable products such as fruits, vegetables and other forms of…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments