it's now wrong to identify an unconstitutional act?

[dennis99ss]

Your Honor, I have nothing to add after Counsel from Florida

 

[yeartolate]

So there is no confusion, let's make clear what the issue is not. 9/11 was perpetrated by sleeper cells, and ceratinly other such cells may be comprised of or aided by citizens. There is certainly the need for wiretaps. The question is whether the President can undertaps such wiretaps without ever involving a judge, even under FISA, whose proceeding are classified. FISA was created for just this purpose. To presume that this power should be exercised without review by a neutral magistrate undermines almost 800 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

Even if you are entrusting this judgment to a wise individual, its still tends to corrupt, as all abolute (unchecked) power does, as Lord Acton noted, referring to the paapcy, I might add . But in this case, you are entrusting that judgment to a group that has consistently misjudged every situation it has confronted inthis sphere

Where is that genuflection smiley when you need it.

Stand, claps, whistles, and genuflects to the above post.

 

[M:SteveO]

A small reminder for those "shocked" and think this is somehow the result of Post 9/11 paranoia, The Patriot Act, Karl Rove, the current occupant of the White House, Underwear Gnomes, etc.: Link

Yes, but see, since that program of spying was during the Clinton administration, it doesn't count. Under Echelon, phone communications around the world (i.e. from everybody, terrorists, drug cartels, etc. and innocent people) are put into the computer and the important stuff is weeded out. That means that everyone's phone calls went into the computer. That means, according to liberals, that everyone's civil liberties were being violated by the Clinton administration. But there's no way to blame Bush for the Echelon program, so it's not worth talking about. The fact that the media completely ignored the other story that Clinton used spy satellites on white supremist groups inside the country yet is hounding Bush on this story just proves their bias. Both did the same thing, yet Clinton does nothing wrong. I don't have any problem with either of the programs, to be frank. Both presidents were trying to protect the country to the best of their ability. I thought that's what the president was supposed to do.

 

[POB14]

Again, no one is saying the government shouldn't use wiretaps. They should. The question is, why didn't the administration follow the rules? Even in an emergency, the govenment can apply for an order within 72 hours AFTER -- A F T E R -- performing the wiretap. (Section 1805f) Why wasn't THAT done, if there was an emergency in these situations?

And "Clinton did the same / worse / got a BJ and lied / is fat" is irrelevant and not an answer to anything.

As a prosecutor who has legally used wiretaps many times, I'm outraged by this.

 

[Puffy2]

This was a sermon given Nov. 7, 2004 - notice how many of the Identifying Characterists of Fascism that the United States now meets under the Bush Administration:


Living Under Fascism
Davidson Loehr
7 November 2004
First UU Church of Austin
4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756
www.austinuu.org


SERMON: Living Under Fascism
You may wonder why anyone would try to use the word “fascism” in a serious discussion of where America is today. It sounds like cheap name-calling, or melodramatic allusion to a slew of old war movies. But I am serious. I don’t mean it as name-calling at all. I mean to persuade you that the style of governing into which America has slid is most accurately described as fascism, and that the necessary implications of this fact are rightly regarded as terrifying. That’s what I am about here. And even if I don’t persuade you, I hope to raise the level of your thinking about who and where we are now, to add some nuance and perhaps some useful insights.

The word comes from the Latin word “Fasces,” denoting a bundle of sticks tied together. The individual sticks represented citizens, and the bundle represented the state. The message of this metaphor was that it was the bundle that was significant, not the individual sticks. If it sounds un-American, it’s worth knowing that the Roman Fasces appear on the wall behind the Speaker’s podium in the chamber of the US House of Representatives.

Still, it’s an unlikely word. When most people hear the word "fascism" they may think of the racism and anti-Semitism of Mussolini and Hitler. It is true that the use of force and the scapegoating of fringe groups are part of every fascism. But there was also an economic dimension of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism," which was an essential ingredient of Mussolini’s and Hitler’s tyrannies. So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a model by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe.

As I mentioned a few weeks ago (in “The Corporation Will Eat Your Soul”), Fortune magazine ran a cover story on Mussolini in 1934, praising his fascism for its ability to break worker unions, disempower workers and transfer huge sums of money to those who controlled the money rather than those who earned it.

Few Americans are aware of or can recall how so many Americans and Europeans viewed economic fascism as the wave of the future during the 1930s. Yet reviewing our past may help shed light on our present, and point the way to a better future. So I want to begin by looking back to the last time fascism posed a serious threat to America.

In Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel "It Can't Happen Here," a conservative southern politician is helped to the presidency by a nationally syndicated radio talk show host. The politician - Buzz Windrip - runs his campaign on family values, the flag, and patriotism. Windrip and the talk show host portray advocates of traditional American democracy — those concerned with individual rights and freedoms — as anti-American. That was 69 years ago.

One of the most outspoken American fascists from the 1930s was economist Lawrence Dennis. In his 1936 book, The Coming American Fascism — a coming which he anticipated and cheered — Dennis declared that defenders of “18th-century Americanism” were sure to become "the laughing stock of their own countrymen." The big stumbling block to the development of economic fascism, Dennis bemoaned, was "liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights."

So it is important for us to recognize that, as an economic system, fascism was widely accepted in the 1920s and '30s, and nearly worshiped by some powerful American industrialists. And fascism has always, and explicitly, been opposed to liberalism of all kinds.

Mussolini, who helped create modern fascism, viewed liberal ideas as the enemy. "The Fascist conception of life," he wrote, "stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual." (In 1932 Mussolini wrote, with the help of Giovanni Gentile, an entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism. You can read the whole entry at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html)

Mussolini thought it was unnatural for a government to protect individual rights: The essence of fascism, he believed, is that government should be the master, not the servant, of the people.

Still, fascism is a word that is completely foreign to most of us. We need to know what it is, and how we can know it when we see it.

In an essay coyly titled “Fascism Anyone?,” Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, identifies social and political agendas common to fascist regimes. His comparisons of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet yielded this list of 14 “identifying characteristics of fascism.” (The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2. Read it at http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm) See how familiar they sound.



1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy [/B] over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism

The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media

Sometimes the media are directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.


7. Obsession with National Security

Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.


9. Corporate Power is Protected

The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections

Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.


This list will be familiar to students of political science. But it should be familiar to students of religion as well, for much of it mirrors the social and political agenda of religious fundamentalisms worldwide. It is both accurate and helpful for us to understand fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political fundamentalism. They both come from very primitive parts of us that have always been the default setting of our species: amity toward our in-group, enmity toward out-groups, hierarchical deference to alpha male figures, a powerful identification with our territory, and so forth. It is that brutal default setting that all civilizations have tried to raise us above, but it is always a fragile thing, civilization, and has to be achieved over and over and over again.

But, again, this is not America’s first encounter with fascism.

In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, “write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?”

Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan. See how much you think his statements apply to our society today.

“The really dangerous American fascist,” Wallace wrote, “… is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.”

In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism he saw rising in America, Wallace added, “They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.” By these standards, a few of today’s weapons for keeping the common people in eternal subjection include NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, union-busting, cutting worker benefits while increasing CEO pay, elimination of worker benefits, security and pensions, rapacious credit card interest, and outsourcing of jobs — not to mention the largest prison system in the world.



The Perfect Storm
Our current descent into fascism came about through a kind of “Perfect Storm,” a confluence of three unrelated but mutually supportive schools of thought.

1. The first stream of thought was the imperialistic dream of the Project for the New American Century. I don’t believe anyone can understand the past four years without reading the Project for the New American Century, published in September 2000 and authored by many who have been prominent players in the Bush administrations, including Cheney, Rumsfleid, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Donald Kagan to name only a few. This report saw the fall of Communism as a call for America to become the military rulers of the world, to establish a new worldwide empire. They spelled out the military enhancements we would need, then noted, sadly, that these wonderful plans would take a long time, unless there could be a catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor that would let the leaders turn America into a military and militarist country. There was no clear interest in religion in this report, and no clear concern with local economic policies.

2. A second powerful stream must be credited to Pat Robertson and his Christian Reconstructionists, or Dominionists. Long dismissed by most of us as a screwball, the Dominionist style of Christianity which he has been preaching since the early 1980s is now the most powerful religious voice in the Bush administration.

Katherine Yurica, who transcribed over 1300 pages of interviews from Pat Robertson’s “700 Club” shows in the 1980s, has shown how Robertson and his chosen guests consistently, openly and passionately argued that America must become a theocracy under the control of Christian Dominionists. Robertson is on record saying democracy is a terrible form of government unless it is run by his kind of Christians. He also rails constantly against taxing the rich, against public education, social programs and welfare — and prefers Deuteronomy 28 over the teachings of Jesus. He is clear that women must remain homebound as obedient servants of men, and that abortions, like homosexuals, should not be allowed. Robertson has also been clear that other kinds of Christians, including Episcopalians and Presbyterians, are enemies of Christ. (The Yurica Report. Search under this name, or for “Despoiling America” by Katherine Yurica on the internet.)

3. The third major component of this Perfect Storm has been the desire of very wealthy Americans and corporate CEOs for a plutocracy that will favor profits by the very rich and disempowerment of the vast majority of American workers, the destruction of workers’ unions, and the alliance of government to help achieve these greedy goals. It is a condition some have called socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor, and which others recognize as a reincarnation of Social Darwinism. This strain of thought has been present throughout American history. Seventy years ago, they tried to finance a military coup to replace Franlkin Delano Roosevelt and establish General Smedley Butler as a fascist dictator in 1934. Fortunately, the picked a general who really was a patriot; he refused, reported the scheme, and spoke and wrote about it. As Canadian law professor Joel Bakan wrote in the book and movie “The Corporation,” they have now achieved their coup without firing a shot.

Our plutocrats have had no particular interest in religion. Their global interests are with an imperialist empire, and their domestic goals are in undoing all the New Deal reforms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that enabled the rise of America’s middle class after WWII.

Another ill wind in this Perfect Storm is more important than its crudity might suggest: it was President Clinton’s sleazy sex with a young but eager intern in the White House. This incident, and Clinton’s equally sleazy lying about it, focused the certainties of conservatives on the fact that “liberals” had neither moral compass nor moral concern, and therefore represented a dangerous threat to the moral fiber of America. While the effects of this may be hard to quantify, I think they were profound.

These “storm” components have no necessary connection, and come from different groups of thinkers, many of whom wouldn’t even like one another. But together, they form a nearly complete web of command and control, which has finally gained control of America and, they hope, of the world.



What’s coming
When all fascisms exhibit the same social and political agendas (the 14 points listed by Britt), then it is not hard to predict where a new fascist uprising will lead. And it is not hard. The actions of fascists and the social and political effects of fascism and fundamentalism are clear and sobering. Here is some of what’s coming, what will be happening in our country in the next few years:

The theft of all social security funds, to be transferred to those who control money, and the increasing destitution of all those dependent on social security and social welfare programs.
Rising numbers of uninsured people in this country that already has the highest percentage of citizens without health insurance in the developed world.
Increased loss of funding for public education combined with increased support for vouchers, urging Americans to entrust their children’s education to Christian schools.
More restrictions on civil liberties as America is turned into the police state necessary for fascism to work
Withdrawal of virtually all funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System. At their best, these media sometimes encourage critical questioning, so they are correctly seen as enemies of the state’s official stories.
The reinstatement of a draft, from which the children of privileged parents will again be mostly exempt, leaving our poorest children to fight and die in wars of imperialism and greed that could never benefit them anyway. (That was my one-sentence Veterans’ Day sermon for this year.)
More imperialistic invasions: of Iran and others, and the construction of a huge permanent embassy in Iraq.
More restrictions on speech, under the flag of national security.
Control of the internet to remove or cripple it as an instrument of free communication that is exempt from government control. This will be presented as a necessary anti-terrorist measure.
Efforts to remove the tax-exempt status of churches like this one, and to characterize them as anti-American.
Tighter control of the editorial bias of almost all media, and demonization of the few media they are unable to control – the New York Times, for instance.
Continued outsourcing of jobs, including more white-collar jobs, to produce greater profits for those who control the money and direct the society, while simultaneously reducing America’s workers to a more desperate and powerless status.
Moves in the banking industry to make it impossible for an increasing number of Americans to own their homes. As they did in the 1930s, those who control the money know that it is to their advantage and profit to keep others renting rather than owning.
Criminalization of those who protest, as un-American, with arrests, detentions and harassment increasing. We already have a higher percentage of our citizens in prison than any other country in the world. That percentage will increase.
In the near future, it will be illegal or at least dangerous to say the things I have said here this morning. In the fascist story, these things are un-American. In the real history of a democratic America, they were seen as profoundly patriotic, as the kind of critical questions that kept the American spirit alive — the kind of questions, incidentally, that our media were supposed to be pressing.
Can these schemes work? I don’t think so. I think they are murderous, rapacious and insane. But I don’t know. Maybe they can. Similar schemes have worked in countries like Chile, where a democracy in which over 90% voted has been reduced to one in which only about 20% vote because they say, as Americans are learning to say, that it no longer matters who you vote for.



Hope
In the meantime, is there any hope, or do we just band together like lemmings and dive off a cliff? Yes, there is always hope, though at times it is more hidden, as it is now.

As some critics are now saying, and as I have been preaching and writing for almost twenty years, America’s liberals need to grow beyond political liberalism, with its often self-absorbed focus on individual rights to the exclusion of individual responsibilities to the larger society. Liberals will have to construct a more complete vision with moral and religious grounding. That does not mean confessional Christianity. It means the legitimate heir to Christianity. Such a legitimate heir need not be a religion, though it must have clear moral power, and be able to attract the minds and hearts of a voting majority of Americans.

And the new liberal vision must be larger than that of the conservative religious vision that will be appointing judges, writing laws and bending the cultural norms toward hatred and exclusion for the foreseeable future. The conservatives deserve a lot of admiration. They have spent the last thirty years studying American politics, forming their vision and learning how to gain control in the political system. And it worked; they have won. Even if liberals can develop a bigger vision, they still have all that time-consuming work to do. It won’t be fast. It isn’t even clear that liberals will be willing to do it; they may instead prefer to go down with the ship they’re used to.

One man who has been tireless in his investigations and critiques of America’s slide into fascism is Michael C. Ruppert, whose postings usually read as though he is wound way too tight. But he offers four pieces of advice about what we can do now, and they seem reality-based enough to pass on to you. This is America; they’re all about money:

First, he says you should get out of debt.
Second is to spend your money and time on things that give you energy and provide you with useful information.
Third is to stop spending a penny with major banks, news media and corporations that feed you lies and leave you angry and exhausted.
And fourth is to learn how money works and use it like a (political) weapon — as he predicts the rest of the world will be doing against us. (from http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110504_snap_out.shtml)
That’s advice written this week. Another bit of advice comes from sixty years ago, from Roosevelt’s Vice President, Henry Wallace. Wallace said, “Democracy, to crush fascism internally, must...develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels.”

Still another way to understand fascism is as a kind of colonization. A simple definition of “colonization” is that it takes people’s stories away, and assigns them supportive roles in stories that empower others at their expense. When you are taxed to support a government that uses you as a means to serve the ends of others, you are — ironically — in a state of taxation without representation. That’s where this country started, and it’s where we are now.

I don’t know the next step. I’m not a political activist; I’m only a preacher. But whatever you do, whatever we do, I hope that we can remember some very basic things that I think of as eternally true. One is that the vast majority of people are good decent people who mean and do as well as they know how. Very few people are evil, though some are. But we all live in families where some of our blood relatives support things we hate. I believe they mean well, and the way to rebuild broken bridges is through greater understanding, compassion, and a reality-based story that is more inclusive and empowering for the vast majority of us.

Those who want to live in a reality-based story rather than as serfs in an ideology designed to transfer power, possibility and hope to a small ruling elite have much long and hard work to do, individually and collectively. It will not be either easy or quick.

But we will do it. We will go forward in hope and in courage. Let us seek that better path, and find the courage to take it — step, by step, by step.

 

[DawnCt1]

Again, no one is saying the government shouldn't use wiretaps. They should. The question is, why didn't the administration follow the rules? Even in an emergency, the govenment can apply for an order within 72 hours AFTER -- A F T E R -- performing the wiretap. (Section 1805f) Why wasn't THAT done, if there was an emergency in these situations?

And "Clinton did the same / worse / got a BJ and lied / is fat" is irrelevant and not an answer to anything.

As a prosecutor who has legally used wiretaps many times, I'm outraged by this.

Again, no law was broken. Why aren't you more OUTRAGED by the leak to the NYT. That is the criminal activity that took place here.

 

[DawnCt1]

Puffy2, You're joking, right???

 

[Chuck S]

Again, no law was broken. Why aren't you more OUTRAGED by the leak to the NYT. That is the criminal activity that took place here.

Actually, not getting court warrants within 72 hours IS breaking the law. I am outraged. I'm outraged that some Americans believe their President is above the Constitution and the rule of law.

 

[M:SteveO]

Puffy2, You're joking, right???

No, he's really not. It's sad that some people actually think we live in a fascist state. Bush=Hitler. Many on the left seem to forget that the enemy is the terrorists, not George W. Bush. I guess we were a fascist state back in the 1940s when FDR was president. FDR, a great president, realized what he had to do to win a great war. Yes, he controlled what got into the media, yes, he wiretapped people, yes, he imprisoned Japanese Americans, yes, we tortured our prisoners (if you want to call it that) but, yes, we won the war and helped spread freedom to places that had never seen it. I shudder to think about what would have happened if this media or these Defeaticrats were calling the shots back in the 40s. Many seem to forget, or maybe they just don't recognize, that we are at war. No matter how much you hate Bush, I just don't understand how you can call him Hitler or a fascist.

 

[DawnCt1]

Actually, not getting court warrants within 72 hours IS breaking the law. I am outraged. I'm outraged that some Americans believe their President is above the Constitution and the rule of law.

No, it isn't. the Constitution provides for this. Additionally, those Democrats that are whining the loudest were in the loop the entire time.

 

[M:SteveO]

Actually, not getting court warrants within 72 hours IS breaking the law. I am outraged. I'm outraged that some Americans believe their President is above the Constitution and the rule of law.

So when Clinton used Echelon to listen in on the phone calls of every American, he wasn't breaking the law. I got it now. I have no problem with the Echelon program or with the current policy. I do have a problem with all the liberals so eager to criticize Bush, while not mentioning what Clinton did. But what could I expect, these people think Bush is more of the enemy than the terrorists.

 

[sodaseller]

No, it isn't. the Constitution provides for this.

Where?

 

[M:SteveO]

Again, no one is saying the government shouldn't use wiretaps. They should. The question is, why didn't the administration follow the rules? Even in an emergency, the govenment can apply for an order within 72 hours AFTER -- A F T E R -- performing the wiretap. Why wasn't THAT done, if there was an emergency in these situations?

And "Clinton did the same / worse / got a BJ and lied / is fat" is irrelevant and not an answer to anything.

As a prosecutor who has legally used wiretaps many times, I'm outraged by this.

It's not always as easy as it sounds to get a warrant from the FISA court. I did a research paper on this a few years ago, and it's really not as simple as going up to the court and getting a warrant 5 minutes later. I would refer you to this article: http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512191334.asp. I know you'll all probably not really read it, because it is from the National Review, but it does let you know of the bureaucracy involved. I also find it sort of funny that the same people who criticized the President for not doing enough before the attacks, now say he's doing too much. If we had had this ability and the Patriot Act before 9/11, it probably wouldn't have happened. The bureaucracy of the FISA court prevented the FBI from quickly searching and using information from Zacarias Moussaoui's computer. But, what am I saying, his human rights would have been violated if the gov't was allowed to use that information without a warrant. Stupid me, I forget sometimes that protecting the country isn't that important.

 

[M:SteveO]

Where?

I have a question, what do you think of FDR. Would you consider him a great president. Because I would. And if you think George Bush is bad when it comes to these so-called civil liberty abuses, you need to review your history. FDR realized we were at war and took the appropriate actions. George Bush realizes we are at war and is taking the appropriate actions. No liberal seems to answer this question about FDR. I mean FDR controlled the media for the most part, have you ever seen the war propaganda that was used during that time period. I think that's what makes FDR a great president, he realized what he had to do to win.

 

[Chuck S]

No, it isn't. the Constitution provides for this. Additionally, those Democrats that are whining the loudest were in the loop the entire time.

Really? All we've heard from the White House is that "Congressional Leaders" were informed...not who specifically those leaders were, or any verification that they were indeed informed.

 

[punkin]

I think that's what makes FDR a great president, he realized what he had to do to win.

Like putting American Citizens in internment camps just because they were of Japanese ancestry?

Maybe Shrub will arrange to imprison all muslims, then he wuldn't have to spy on them.

 

[Mom2be]

Again, no law was broken. Why aren't you more OUTRAGED by the leak to the NYT. That is the criminal activity that took place here.

Prove it.

 

[Chuck S]

It's not always as easy as it sounds to get a warrant from the FISA court. I did a research paper on this a few years ago, and it's really not as simple as going up to the court and getting a warrant 5 minutes later.

Let me get this straight...you think the FISA court should rubber stamp a decision without proper review? Of course it takes longer than 5 minutes for the court to review the case, it should! The court could allow the tap to go on, citing the type of info being gathered, while it makes a final decision.

The president has 72 hours to present his case to FISA. It was not done, that is the law...period. Not "present it if it is convenient", or "present it, if he wants to". The President is not above the law.

If the court decides against the tap, the President has done nothing illegal, since he did present his case within the guidelines. Not presenting it to FISA IS illegal.

 

[sodaseller]

I have a question, what do you think of FDR. Would you consider him a great president. Because I would. And if you think George Bush is bad when it comes to these so-called civil liberty abuses, you need to review your history. FDR realized we were at war and took the appropriate actions. George Bush realizes we are at war and is taking the appropriate actions. No liberal seems to answer this question about FDR. I mean FDR controlled the media for the most part, have you ever seen the war propaganda that was used during that time period. I think that's what makes FDR a great president, he realized what he had to do to win.

That was not an appropriate action. That was a stain on his otherwise ilustrious Presidency.

And ya'll love to compare this war with WWII, which is bizaare. I really don't know how ya'll think sometimes. Really, your arguments are nonsenical. It was the wrong action for that more extreme context, and this context doesn't approach that

 

[Chuck S]

Don't forget that congress also actually declared war in WWI and WWII, there has been no declaration by congress for war on Iraq, Afghanistan or "Terror". And by the constitution only Congress has the power to declare war.