BloggeRhythms

As debate continues on curbing NSA’s eavesdropping capabilities, there are several critical things to remember. First and foremost, the World Trade Center destruction on 9/11, and since then the Newtown, Conn. shootings and the Boston bombings, two more that we know of. 

 

But what we don’t know, however, is how many others have been prevented, whereas full disclosure by authorities is too much information in the hands of the public. Especially when release of those details could very well aid enemies residing or operating within the U.S.

 

Therefore, having the capability to gather helpful information and not using it in a world that’s changed dramatically regarding terror simply makes no sense. Especially since the data-gathering’s gone on for some time now, and hasn’t been abused or misguided at all.

 

In that regard, it seems that Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy, of Vermont is taking a position that he ought to rethink. He’s chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and according to Fox News on-line he said today that, “the upper chamber will continue working on legislation to limit NSA spying, suggesting President Obama has not gone far enough in making changes to protect Americans’ privacy.”

 

The article reports that, “There’s a concern that we have gone too much into Americans’ privacy,” the Democratic lawmaker told “Fox News Sunday.” “There’s still going to be legislation on this.”

 

Reading further on though, it appears that Leahy’s displeasure is either pure political hype, or he’s a very confused individual, because he later said, “he wouldn’t fight the president on his proposed NSA changes -- including additional court approval, a non-government agency holding phone meta-data and limiting the extent of the data collection.

 

“I think we have a way we can do this,” he said. “I believe in going after the bad guys. But I also believe in some checks and balances, so you don’t have a government run amok.”

 

So, if he truly believes we should pursue the “bad guys” and has no qualms or disagreements with the incumbent's suggested changes in procedures, and that’s the core of issue at hand, what is Leahy talking about? This is nothing more than political double or triple speak where a Senator says I demand a change but want to leave everything as it is now.

 

That’s it for today folks

 

Adios