AZ Republic: Spooky Snooping

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/1220tue1-20.html

I find my hometown newspaper so embarrassingly RW. And this is no exception. While this editorial
isn't as bad as some are, it still can't resist drinking some Kool Aid.

Excerpt:
"Regardless, warrantless eavesdropping has had an impact. It helped uncover a plot by a naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty to plan to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. It helped uncover an al-Qaida plan to blow up British pubs and train stations. The grandstanding and hyperbole from Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., among others, rarely include those events."

Wow!

When has America defended lawbreakers like this before?!

Definately Spooky.

Oh, that's right, our honest and trustworthy leader

Reading the drivel that the 'writers' spew, not to mention the majority of uninformed, unthinking, uncaring, morans that inhabit this place, makes me want to... I don't know, maybe force them to go and work in some sweatshop for a couple of years, or better yet make them black and make them live here!

I brace myself every morning for the RW drivel on the editorial page.
It's so predictable what their responce will be to anything Dear Leader does. :banghead:

... search wouldn't?

This is the red herring in their talking points. There isn't the slightest intellectual honesty in such a screed. When they argue that the searches were justifiable ... then why didn't they justify them?? If it's so clearly warrantable, why not get the warrant?

Victoria Toensing (maggot, esq.) postured the same crap on Washington Journal. Their 'defense' is that such eavesdropping was justifiable .. even if not justified. That's not a defense. That's like saying the police have the authority to merely secretly imprison anyone they believe guilty of a crime ... and as long as they're 'right' more often than 'wrong' then it's OK. They pretend that the burden of proof is on those who must show an abuse of power ... when the Constitution specifically forbids such an approach.

how could that be accepted as evidence in a court of law? Wouldn't that have been thrown out? :shrug: