Hmmmm. So, what's the difference between the Stasi in East Germany saying it was for 'National Security' and a democratic White House under Hillary Clinton saying it's for 'National Security'? And when it's no longer Al Qaeda they're worried about? When they begin to consider political action groups to be a threat to 'National Security'? What then?
The rest of you can lap this up if you want- that's you're choice of course- but nothing on this Earth can make me like this. If that makes me a 'bad conservative'- I don't care.
This is not the first time this has been done. It has been ruled on by the courts before.
However, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant, in which you can call Bush a dictator.
I don't like it much, either. But I am not ready to impeach the President over it. It looks like what was done was legal, because it was done for the purposes of gathering foreign intelligence. So the legal issue is settled, IMHO.
However, as a political issue, I would favor a politician who supported clear limitations in this regard. If a Presidential candidate were to come out foursquare for an executive order stating clearly what the government may and may not do in this area that would be more protective of individual privacy, I would be more inclined to support that candidate.
To me, ultimately, it is a political question.
I don't think anyone would be defending it if it were Jimmy Carter or Clinton. I don't trust demorats to have power to do warrantless wiretaps or searches. I don't trust Republicans to have power to do warrantless wiretaps or searches, either.
Do you really believe Hellary, or any dim, will let a little something like the LAW get in the way? 900 FBI files - not problem. Waco - no problem. Elian - no problem.
SJ Res 23, 9/13/2001:
"...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
This is like saying "whats the difference between a cow and a goldfish both of them are alive".
Well your first problem is you've asked an intelligent well thought out question that looks at the larger picture and takes the future into consideration. May I suggest you shut down your higher brain functions (you know that part that remembers the intent of the Framers) and just play along subject citizen. After all since the current leadership has a R by its name it can do no wrong and always has our best interest at heart...
The rest of you can lap this up if you want- that's you're choice of course- but nothing on this Earth can make me like this. If that makes me a 'bad conservative'- I don't care.
If she is in power under your terms, what's to stop a Clinton sympathizer judge from authorizing a bad search on you with a warrant? De facto bad ending for you if you extrapolate. IOW, in this new paradigm we a living in, you have to trust the good guys RIGHT NOW. We can deal with Hillary later, namely at the polls.
The difference is between using and abusing power.
George W. Bush is exercising his legitimate constitutional powers to surveil suspected foreign agents for national security purposes, without benefit of a warrant.
Hpwever, Hillary Clinton would be abusing her constitutional authority if she was surveiling you without a warrant because you were suspected of growing marijuana.
Recall that the Clintons were able to conduct all sorts of nefarious beyond-the-law actions during their reign simply because they ignored existing laws, not because they were enabled by them.
Out best defense against a Hillary Clinton is the ballot box, not legislation that restricts the executive.