Posted on 12/28/2005 12:55:26 PM PST by balch3
Two of the most powerful moments of political déjà vu I have ever experienced took place recently in the context of the Bush administration's defense of presidentially ordered electronic spying on American citizens.
First, in the best tradition of former President Bill Clinton's classic, "it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is" defense, President Bush responded to a question at a White House news conference about what now appears to be a clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws by trying to argue that he had not ordered the National Security Agency to "monitor" phone and e-mail communications of American citizens without court order; he had merely ordered them to "detect" improper communications
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
Fighting terrorism is one of these grey areas that our legal structure causes to fall into the cracks. The reason we have courts and judges and lawyers is to deal with that which falls into the cracks. JUST because you FEEL something is illegal does NOT make it so. Terrorism is a difficult legal problem for a nation. There is no nation to declare war so you can not use that legals structure, yet it takes more then just police powers to fight it. Therefore their is NO way to say just where the Presidents Legal Authority as Commander in Chief ends. That is for the Judiciary and the Legislature to thrash out with the Executive. That is why there is a balance of powers children.
One of the challenges for America is to chart a course thru these unknown shoals. Just sitting around spewing forth a rabid Civil Libertine Dogma may make the Whine All the Time Choir feel all wise but it is stupid, irrational response to the problem. The world must be dealt with as it is NOT as we would wish it were. This rabid clinging to 9-10-01 viewpoints and refusing to grow up is merely the childish babble of the evolutionarily challenged.
Ignore the FReedom Hater's around here. Any attack on Jorge Arbusto will draw their venom. Of course Bob Barr is right. Blackbird.
Never liked the guy.
"Due process" my ass!! The American people vest in the POTUS full responsibility for National Security. Nowhere does the constitution state that this responsibility is subject to veto by some unelected idiot judge. You've grown too accustomed to "pussey" presidents like clintoon and carter with their nose up jihadist butt. The USA is damn lucky to have Bush as POTUS at this critical time. The jihadists, after having such an easy time clintoon/carter, were not expecting to have their nose rubbed in it by Bush. I say keep up the signals and radiological surveillance Mr President and if ANYONE attempts to interfere thereby jeopardizing national security, suspend Writ of Habeas Corpus" and throw their ass(es) in jail like Lincoln did.
Bob Barr= Benedict Arnold
They are really opportunists. Bob Barr is one. Larry Klayman another. Add in David Brock and Arianna Huffington, all of whom have switched sides in the effort to still make money.
Barr was a big deal when he was mouthing opinions we wanted to hear on the air ways. He obviously doesn't really believe what he said on H & C, since he is now doing a 180 from those early appearances. He is a poseur and I ignore anything that he says.
Are you saying Radio Shack sells scanners that can readily monitor cell phones and monitoring cell phone conversations is not illegal?
I scanned the article. Yes it seems Radio Shack and other sell the equipment. Legality is another issue- probably varies from state to state.
"The Constitution? Due process? Ever heard of them?
Bob Barr is right."
Take comfort in that when the poison green cloud comes rolling down your street. And breathe deeply.
I don't think so.
He is an American citizen. He is afford the same rights as you and I under the Constitution.
Please show me where in the Constitution it says that the President can perform an search without due process?
The US Constitution did not apply to the Japanese or the Germans. What's your point? Appearently it didn't apply to FDR either.
Yes, I am a member of the Libertarian Party. However, I voted for Bush twice. Don't assume anything.
Not exactly Presidents that you should be using for an example.
Agreed. I mostly like to see their reactions though.
I CAN use CAPITAL letter TOOOOO!
Look as I've said in this post, I voted for George Bush twice.
However, you are blind to the Constitution if you think that what the Bush Administration has done is legal.
I'm not against wiretaps or anything like that. But if Bush is going to do it, he has to do it legally and with a court order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.