it's now wrong to identify an unconstitutional act?

[dennis99ss]

At least, that's what I heard George say today. He did it, He is proud of it, and the people who leaked out that he was doing it are the one's who are wrong.........Get that, the one's who tell people that George is abusing the constitution are the ones that are wrong.


I don't see any provision in the constitution that allows a president to spy on Americans, without a warrant.

I have said this againa and again. 1984.

Of course, 35% of you will follow blindly, and attack this thread, but, come on, spying on Americans, without a warrant? Wiretaps, without a warrant?

Why did he not want to go to his secret court, and get a warrant?

Is he like Nixon and the IRS?

Just random thoughts. But, i am out tonight to dinner, and then tailgating, and to see the Texans loose tomorrow, maybe Kurt Warner will put on a show that will make it better..........

Hm, i wonder if me saying the Texans will loose set off an alarm bell somewhere in the NSA?

Big Brother is watching. I hope the love police don't come and get me.

 

[bicker]

Bush is wrong. That's pretty-much it.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Bush is wrong. That's pretty-much it.

Agreed, but if he waves his flag just hard enough and if his handlers call all those who disagree unpatriotic just loud enough, he'll probably get this pig to fly as well. Too bad.

 

[yeartolate]

I think it is just awful.

 

[Stitchfans]

No one said life was fair. I've been told that numerous times and have experienced it numerous times. Will continue to experience it. Some people can get away with doing something wrong and others can't.

And yes, he is wrong!!

 

[Laz]

A Quote From an AP report:

James Bamford, author of two books on the NSA, said the program could be problematic because it bypasses a special court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.

"I didn't hear him specify any legal right, except his right as president, which in a democracy doesn't make much sense," Bamford said in an interview. "Today, what Bush said is he went around the law, which is a violation of the law — which is illegal."


"Retired Adm. Bobby Inman, who led the NSA from 1977 to 1981, said Bush's authorization of the eavesdropping would have been justified in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks "because at that point you couldn't get a court warrant unless you could show probable cause."

"Once the Patriot Act was in place, I am puzzled what was the need to continue outside the court," Inman added. But he said, "If the fact is valid that Congress was notified, there will be no consequences."


So one question is if the President was allowed to bypass the Special Court because Congress was informed? The second question is who was informed in Congress and why did these members of Congress wait until the leak came out to complain? The third question is who leaked secret information in the first place?

I know many of you hate the President. However, should we really be focusing on the Patriot Act and post 9/11 laws similar to that? The ultimate questions you must answer are if we have to give up Civil Liberties for security, and if so, which liberities and how much? The Roosevelt administration of WW II cut into many civil liberites, performed many acts that we would consider unconstitutional, and hid much of that from the American people in the interest of National Security. In this war on terror, which will continue long past the Bush Administration, these and many question must be faced. It seems like Congress is too busy arguing with each other to face these problems and provide direction. This may leave any president with the power to direct as he sees fit. Write your congressman or senator now and let him know your thoughts. Don't forget to tell them to quit bickering like children and get to work!

 

[thelionqueen]

Flame away, but OK. Here's a situation you may remember..
The hijakers of 9/11. If the intelligence could/would have had wire taps on their phones legally or illegally and the act was stopped, would you deem it OK for this action?

I know this is an opposing view on this thread, but I support his decision 100%. The constitution is a very important tool in the lifestyles of Americans, but it was written so very long ago and needs to updated for today's issues with terrorism.

He is not spying just to do it, he is spying on peoples conversations and actions with others overseas that may directly link them to terrorist activities. Is this OK...IMO YES.

Is it OK for the "Big Brother" type scenario, to spy for no reason just to "flex his Presidential power?" Absolutely NOT!!

IMHO, if you are not doing anything that will trigger this activity, then what do you care? I do not believe, for one second, that this is a "Big Brother" scenario and that everyone's constitutional rights are at risk.

The President is doing whatever needs to be done to protect America, and nothing else. I for one feel safe with Bush as our President. He does things that spark controversy, but at the end of the day, he is an American protecting his country.

One more scenario, if this story had come out with a different ending...say the people that were "spied" on had a massive terrorist attack planned on your city and it was overted due to this proactive measure, would you still feel the same?? I doubt it. The world today is different from our pre 9/11 existence and things need to change.

 

[DawnCt1]

One more scenario, if this story had come out with a different ending...say the people that were "spied" on had a massive terrorist attack planned on your city and it was overted due to this proactive measure, would you still feel the same?? I doubt it. The world today is different from our pre 9/11 existence and things need to change.

Exactly right. Furthermore, the Congressional leadership was briefed more than a dozen times on this exact thing so it isn't just "he" its "they". We knew after 9/11 that there were perhaps thousands of terrorists cells in this country looking to do us harm. There had been sleeper cells for years. Several attacks were thwarted by this surviellance which was overseen by the Justice Dept. Ask yourselves one question; "Did you blow up?" Personally, I think its much more intrusive to order tax audits on your political enemies than surveillance on your enemies with direct connections to Al Qaeda.

 

[Tanuki]

From what I understand the courts are somewhat of a pushover when it comes to approval of wiretaps. It really isn't all that difficult to get a judge to authorize a wiretap.

So why didn't the administration just go thru normal channels to get the proper authority to wiretap?

We live in an era of pagers and cellphones. If there is a problem getting a judge to comply in a timely basis couldn't they set up an "on call" schedule?
They called congress in on a weekend when it was Terri Schiavo.

You have to assume they thought they wouln't be able to get approval but wanted to go ahead anyway. What I would like to see come out is who they were so anxious to wiretap without a judge's approval.

 

[DawnCt1]

it was Terri Schiavo.

You have to assume they thought they wouln't be able to get approval but wanted to go ahead anyway. What I would like to see come out is who they were so anxious to wiretap without a judge's approval.

Or it could have been of a top secret nature that required a prompt response. The incidences occurred approx. 36 times. Considering the level of the threats that hardly seems excessive which leads me to believe that judicial review occurred in the vast majority of the situations.

 

[Tanuki]

Do you think that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby have "Top Secret" clearance?
Why are they so much more trustworthy than a Judge?

 

[DawnCt1]

Do you think that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby have "Top Secret" clearance?
Why are they so much more trustworthy than a Judge?

Judges are political appointees that extend often through many administrations. All you have to do is look at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals if you want to see a gaggle of "political judges". All of those that were under surveillence HAD DIRECT TIES to Al Qaeda. There was a huge gap in intelligence between what went on inside the country and what went on outside of the country. The program was well vetted and even Nancy Pelosi was informed. Of course now that the story has broken in the NYT, she is saying she had "reservations". The president has the authority to protect and defend the country. I am glad that he put politics aside and did just that. FDR wouldn't have lead us to victory in WWII with the press corp that President Bush has now.

 

[hiwaygal]

Maybe I'm naive...but hasn't the NSA been doing this stuff for YEARS? Or is that just a Hollywood legend?

 

[Tanuki]

You could look at the Supreme Court if you want to see a "gaggle of political appointees".

What I don't understand is how out of all the Judges on all the courts of the United States of America you couldn't find even ONE that could pass for "Top Secret" clearance?

What I'm seeing is a mentality that thinks everyone else but "us" "Hates America" and couldn't be trusted to do what was necessary to prevent another Sept 11th.

That's an amazing degree of paranoia. The whole country is full of potential traitors who want us to become the next Islamic Republic. Wow.

It's amazing you trust the general public to decide who they want to vote for. That's where those "political appointees" come from in the first place.
They are appointed by elected officials - correct?

 

[dcentity2000]

One more scenario, if this story had come out with a different ending...say the people that were "spied" on had a massive terrorist attack planned on your city and it was overted due to this proactive measure, would you still feel the same?? I doubt it. The world today is different from our pre 9/11 existence and things need to change.

It's funny, but nations that are used to terrorism (eg. the UK and Spain) don't feel the same way. Maybe the USA's attitude will follow suit when it has learned the same lessons.

[EDIT]: Disclaimer - I mean no offence to the fine nation that is the USA by that comment, merely that in terms of experience re: terrorism it is still very young, being a comparatively young country as a whole.



Rich::

 

[hydster]

According to the president (and I use that term loosely) the Constitution is just a G** D**ned piece of paper!!!!!!!

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

It's no wonder he's doing this stuff.....he has no regard for the document that he swore to uphold and defend.

And to everyone who is going to tell me that this article is a made up fictitious lie....I pray to God it is......but if not it sickens me!

 

[DawnCt1]

According to the president (and I use that term loosely) the Constitution is just a G** D**ned piece of paper!!!!!!!

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

It's no wonder he's doing this stuff.....he has no regard for the document that he swore to uphold and defend.

And to everyone who is going to tell me that this article is a made up fictitious lie....I pray to God it is......but if not it sickens me!

Unnamed sources, unnamed aid written by someone with an obvious hate filled agenda in a "publication" with another obvious agenda. Had the president actually said anything even remotely close to this, Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy would be fighting with each other for "face" time during the breaking news segment on CBS!

 

[hydster]

Which is why I said I DON'T KNOW THAT HE REALLY SAID IT BUT and I USED A BIG BUT....IF he did...it is really disturbing! I will not argue this point with you but this has been posted on other sites just not on ones that most people will read because they are not CBS, CNN, NBC or any others! I'm done with the conversation because I know full well that no one wins a debate with you because no matter what you are right! I put it out there for other people who actually don't trust everything the US Press does or does not print! I'm done here.

But Merry Christmas just the same

 

[LastTycoon]

I know this is an opposing view on this thread, but I support his decision 100%. The constitution is a very important tool in the lifestyles of Americans, but it was written so very long ago and needs to updated for today's issues with terrorism.

I totally agree. In this time of national crisis, a time when our most cherished freedoms and rights are threatened by international terrorists, Americans must be willing to let go of some of their rights and freedoms. We are at war. We are under siege by terrorists who are adherents of a fundamentalist, totalitarian belief system that makes up it's own rules and does not tolerate dissent. Not exactly a great time for our President to pay attention to the constitution, or such divisive, destructive things as dialogue and debate. Please, as American Citizens who want to protect your country, stop asking questions, accept the decisions of your leaders, and let's get on with spreading this kind of freedom and liberty to all the world.

 

[Chuck S]

Except that the "Constitution" is more than a mere "tool" to guide us, it is the Supreme Law of the Land. A President that ignores the Constitution, claiming a "special circumstance" is UNLAWFUL. And I sure would like to know just "who" he "informed" in Congress? Obviously, he did not inform the entire congress in any sort of closed secret session. And surely, a Judge should have been consulted for approval, especially if he circumvented the Constitution 36 times. Claiming that "judges" are appinted and not "worthy" of security clearances is ludicrious...Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are "appointed" as well, aren't they? At least I surely never saw their names on a ballot.