Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by NATO AIR, Jan 19, 2006.
Good of Max Boot to put this into perspective as he so often does very well....
It's an absurd notion to suggest that just because he's not imprisoning Michael Moore, that in fact Bush isn't behaving outrageously by trying to circumvent the constitutionally limited authority that we as citizens have agreed to give him.
He's been given a process to follow that sufficiently authorizes exactly this type of wire tapping. There has never been offered up a defensible reason why he couldn't either
1) Follow the existing laws as they are written
2) Appeal to the citizens (through Congress) to change the rules governing his authority if there is a problem.
Instead, he chose to act as judge, juror and liberty-executioner by choosing to ignore the written law by simply saying "it doesn't apply to me".
That's a fascist choice on his part.
It's untenable behavior by an elected official.
Such actions are clearly impeachable offenses. And interestingly enough, the public seems to agree... regarless of this particular bloggers counter-factual opinions.
It is the act of a President during a time of war. Bush is hardly setting a precedent in that regard.
What the wiretapping REALLY amounts to is the left throwing yet more shit against the wall to see if it sticks.
George W. Bush is following the law as written. It's specifically stated that a sitting president may, with permission from the attorney general (which Bush obtained), authorize warrantless wire taps for the purposes of gathering foreign intelligence only. If the information is to be used in a domestic criminal trial, those who acquired the information may obtain a warrant up to three days after the information was gathered.
No law has been broken. No rights have been violated.
In fact, foreign phone calls to Muslim countries don't even meet the 'expectation of privacy' standard, since those countries have no laws against random, warrantless wiretaps.
Is Bush actually going after such 72 hour warrants? I've not heard that to be true.
Actually Bush doesn't have the time to do any such thing. Perhaps Justice or NSA, though they do not have to. My understanding is that in any 'all domestic' ones, they have.
But what about the 1/2 domestic ones? I'm guessing your silence suggests you've not heard any defense made saying that they have on those as well.
Again you ignore what has gone before, by flipping between threads. There is no reason for a warrant, as the FISA courts, Justice Dept, and Jamie Gorelick have already stated.
If you will read my full post, Bush only needs a warrant to use the info in a court of law, which he's not doing without warrants.
Separate names with a comma.