| Page 2 of 5 < > |
A Zeal to Defend Secrecy
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Now the Republicans play the same game and may have taken it to a new level. William Kristol and Gary Schmitt stated, "Even as federal courts have sought to balance Fourth Amendment rights with security imperatives, they have upheld a president's 'inherent authority' under the Constitution to acquire necessary intelligence for national security purposes."
The Constitution enumerates delineated powers. That used to be the mantra of the right. As President Bush stampedes over the individual rights for which our Founders fought, I guess it's just not a convenient thing to say.
-- Mark S. Lerner
Reston
"[T]he issue . . . [is] whether the executive branch is going to uphold the law or subvert it." William Kristol and David Brooks wrote these words in the Weekly Standard about the Clinton-Gore administration in the run-up to the 2000 election -- words that ring ever truer given the revelation about the NSA's eavesdropping.
This week Kristol and Gary Schmitt wrote, "Congress has the right and the ability to judge whether President Bush has in fact used his executive discretion soundly, and to hold him responsible if he hasn't."
This is a specious argument: Congress does not have the ability to judge a program kept secret from it and the rest of the country.
