The Right Wing Conservative Slant

From a Conservative Blog Post (californiaconservative.org):

Let's not put all of this on the reporter's shoulders, either. Blame must also be affixed to the editors and publishers, too, for letting this information find its way to print. While it's true that a lot of things that are classified that don't need to be, it's obvious that the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program that the NY Times broke, and the CIA's black sites story that the Washington Post's Dana Priest won a Pulitzer for aren't in the category of needlessly classified.

Wow.

The FAR less egregious of the two points above, first.

The "secret" prisons.

We should visit all the TV stations that originally broadcast his tapes, etc., and get the information that we need to get to capture Osama Bin Laden, for example.

But here's the problem with the prisons. Since we don't really always know who is a terrorist, and who is innocent, torture, let alone state sanctioned torture, is certainly not the right call. (Also, remember, a lot of the Iraqi insurgents, as hard as this is to understand, and as misguided as they may have been, were not terrorists, but thought they were fighting for their country against aggression.)

But more importantly, if it is a policy that the American people would not accept, and it is being done by their government, then they have a right to know.

At least in a free society, the "land of the free and home of the brave," they have both a right, and a duty, to know.

Under our founding documents and principles -- and I suggest, very correctly -- our government in America derives its sole power from the consent of the governed. This has to involve consent of its policies, as well.

Additionally, people are responsible for their own government, and for their own country. This also includes responsibility for its policies.

Therefore, it is anti-American to have not reported this information, when it represented policy that was not only in violation of international law, and in violation of our own stated policies, but probably against the will of a majority of Americans as well.

With respect to the NSA wiretap surveillance issue, it is mind boggling just how upside down this issue has been turned.

For the party that claims to be on the side of freedom, the "give unchecked power to the government in order to 'protect us'" approach is also extremely hard to fathom. And, it is cowardly.

First,a basic understanding of the legal and constitutional issues is required. Unfortunately, this doesn't come from reading Alberto Gonzales' spin, which no less than conservative constitutional studies fellow Robert Levy called "bizarre," in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The issues are non partisan, and they are clear cut and unambiguous. The surveillance program was in plain violation of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, and as such, flagrantly violated the Constitution's separation of powers clauses.

This action also represented the unilateral appointment and usurpation of unchecked government power. That is -- no warrant or other basis for review, and no record to actually know what the program, good intentions aside, is or might be used for. This is why the Executive Branch's unconstitutional actions, in the words of Ronald Reagan's Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein, would have our founding fathers "rolling over in their graves."

But regardless of all of these considerations, the program was blatantly illegal under FISA, and the clandestine exercise of it, therefore, a violation of the Constitution's First, Second, and Third Articles' separation of powers clauses.

And, most important of all, even if the question was ambiguous (which it's not, READ the above link), those would still be up to the people of the United States, through our system of checks and balances, to make a determination on. Not for the executive branch to do secretely.

A democracy can not function without proper information. To suggest that the government's potentially (and flagantly) illegal activity should not otherwise be investigated and exposed by the Press to the American people, let alone suggest that they did something against America interests, is, in the words of Nixon White House Counsel John Dean (on MSNBC, April 6), "something other than a democracy."

Upon top of all of these other considerations, the issue of threats and attacks upon the press, to cover up possible criminal, illegal, or unconstitutional actions, is about as anti-American and anti-democracy as one can possibly be. The issue is brilliantly, and chillingly, covered here by author Glenn Greenwald. It should be required reading for every American citizen.