If anyone warrants aggressive interrogation tactics, it's Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I cannot understand the court's interpretation of the Geneva Convention. Al Qaeda is not a conventional armed force. They are criminals, not soldiers, and they follow no rules, honor, or morals. They do not represent any nation, nor do they seek military aims. Their operations are designed solely to terrify populations to the point that resistance to Al Qaeda's goals is eliminated.
Has the New Yorker run even one article detailing the treatment of American soldiers captured? I don't want people who think the Khalids of the world should be treated like captured POWs defending me.
Do I want the government snooping on my personal correspondence or telephone calls? Of course not. But do I want to face increased risk of being a victim of these despicable terrorists because someone thinks we need to have just as tight a restriction on communications surveillance of terrorists as we do ordinary citizens, NO, NO.
Perhaps, that is why we had the vote on the spying authorization bill we did. When you look at California's senatorial team, one doesn't generally think of neocons. Feinstein voted for the bill, infuriating some Leftists, complaining of a few other votes she has made that were helpful to the administration. They have vowed to vote her out. Lots of luck, she doesn't run again until 2012 and she will be 79, and may retire anyway. She may not vote 100% of the way the far left desires, but by one ranking, she was the 26th most liberal senator, above every Republian, and obviously many Democrats. Curiously, Barbara Boxer, gets a pass. She didn't vote for the bill. BUT, she didn't vote against it, either.
The bill protects us while congress enjoys the recess they begrudge the Iraqi congress. It expires in 6 months. Nancy Pelosi has vowed that when they return, they will craft a better bill. That's fine with me, just as long as they don't handcuff our efforts to protect Americans.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
