Occupy Wall Street Protesters Fed Up With Both Parties

So Much Evidence, There's No Need To Show It:

During the NSA eavesdropp­ing controvers­y, Bush defenders insisted there was no harm from bypassing the FISA court because they were only eavesdropp­ing on Bad Terrorists (who could possibly object to that?), which prompted this obvious, unanswerab­le question (one I asked here, among other places): if you really have so much evidence proving that the targets of your eavesdropp­ing are Terrorists­, then why not go show it to the court and get a warrant?  After all, the more incriminat­ing evidence you claim exists, the more (not less) reason there is to show it to a court.  Similarly, during the controvers­y over Bush’s (and now Obama’s) detentions without due process, administra­tion defenders insisted there was no need to charge the detainees or try them in a court because they were only imprisonin­g the-worst-­of-the-wor­st, too-danger­ous-to-rel­ease Terrorists (who could possibly object to that?), which prompted the same question: if there’s so much evidence proving they’re Terrorists­, isn’t that even more of a reason to prove that in court?

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost