Bush / Nixon comparison...

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

As far as I'm concerned, it is a failure of our entire system. We have not formally declared a war since declaring it on Romania during WWII (June 5, 1942). That is over a span of 60 years. No wonder all the Presidents not just G.W. since Nixon and Johnson have circumvented the laws. The War Powers Act was enacted as a result of the Vietnam War and came about in 1973. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "FISA" is another archaic law passed back in 1978. Neither are consistent with the changing times and do not take into account 9/11 and the War on Terrorism. The US Constitution and Federal statutes must be changed or amended.

The Constitution is a living document that must change with the times. The Founding Fathers of our country could have never imagined the threat of WMD wielding terrorists destroying the World Trade Center to include Pentagon and murdering over 3,000 people in the process.

I believe the Bush administration acted in good faith and in the interests of national security based on the circumstances before the country as a direct and proximate result of 9/11. Until such time it is proven otherwise, he is entitled to sovereign, absolute and qualified immunity. What Bush and his administration did was not "an act of high treason."

Where I do find fault with Bush, his high paid Attorney General and other US Attorneys is not taking the time to ask Congress for new legislation to effectively combat the War on Terror which could preclude executive branch abuse. Likewise I blame Congress for their gross acquiescence in not declaring war or waiting until now (years later) to do something about it. It is politics as usual.

Nice. Blame everything else, but the Administration. Is it any wonder why they feel they can get away with anything, with sheep like you encouraging them?

You're even blaming the laws as being antiquated. Could you clarify what exactly is 'out-of-date', or 'out-of-touch' about the 4th Amendment?

You're saying the Administration should be given even MORE power?

Also, irregardless of how you feel it should be, until it's changed, the law is in black and white. No amount of leeway you can give Bush will change that.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

.
.
.

Also, regardless of how you feel it should be, until it's changed, the law is in black and white. No amount of leeway you can give Bush will change that.

The law was clearly violated; it doesn't matter if the laws are outdated or not, or what the motivation was. Mr. Bush admitted on national television that he has violated the law.

[GTP Dad]

Actually the law is not black and white otherwise it would always have to be applied equally with no room for interpretation. Did this administration do something wrong? Yes. Did Bush use his executive powers for what he felt to be the best interest of the American people? Yes. Will this turn into a fiasco? You better believe it! Especially since the democrats will blame the republican administration and the republicans will blame the democrats for being too liberal and wanting to keep everything all warm and fuzzy.

If punishment is warranted then let those who are without sin cast the first stone. Politics is a dirty business in this country and it is about to get worse. If the lawmakers in Washington concentrated on what is in the public interest and stopped being so partisan then maybe we would get laws that mean something to protect innocent citizens not criminals, protect the masses against terrorists and stop trying to pick our pockets to pay for useless projects that don't do anything for anyone.

I am a firm believer in the constitution of the United States and the bill of rights. If temporarily sacrificing some of my rights so that my family is safe from nuts I will gladly allow it. If it will protect my fellow Americans from another tragedy like 9-11 then go for it.

I am not brain washed into thinking that the administration can do no wrong because there hasn't been an administration in recent memory that hasn't had problems or tried to hide something in the name of national security. So lets look at the big picture. Do you feel safer today than you did just after September 11, 2001?

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

Actually the law is not black and white otherwise it would always have to be applied equally with no room for interpretation. Did this administration do something wrong? Yes. Did Bush use his executive powers for what he felt to be the best interest of the American people? Yes. Will this turn into a fiasco? You better believe it! Especially since the democrats will blame the republican administration and the republicans will blame the democrats for being too liberal and wanting to keep everything all warm and fuzzy.

I ask what is not black and white about (paraphrasing) "OK to have wiretap but get it ok'd by a judge within 72 hours", and Bush's admission that he did not do that because he (basically) didn't want to?

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

If punishment is warranted then let those who are without sin cast the first stone.

Bringing religion into it probably won't help. Although I agree with the precept, I think that after turning the other cheek it's time to pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

Politics is a dirty business in this country and it is about to get worse. If the lawmakers in Washington concentrated on what is in the public interest and stopped being so partisan then maybe we would get laws that mean something to protect innocent citizens not criminals, protect the masses against terrorists and stop trying to pick our pockets to pay for useless projects that don't do anything for anyone.

Please don't turn a blind eye to the corruption that is firmly ensconced in our government.

And while I'd hope that some integrity and common sense would get into the government, I'm sure that something is exploding somewhere because I've used those three italicized terms in the same sentence.

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

I am a firm believer in the constitution of the United States and the bill of rights. If temporarily sacrificing some of my rights so that my family is safe from nuts I will gladly allow it. If it will protect my fellow Americans from another tragedy like 9-11 then go for it.

As stated by others before, there lies the slippery slope.

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

I am not brain washed into thinking that the administration can do no wrong because there hasn't been an administration in recent memory that hasn't had problems or tried to hide something in the name of national security. So lets look at the big picture. Do you feel safer today than you did just after September 11, 2001?

No, I do not. And for different reasons. On 9/11 the threat was external. I now firmly believe that the greatest threat to Americal Liberty may be internal. We will do ourselves in.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

The law was clearly violated; it doesn't matter if the laws are outdated or not, or what the motivation was. Mr. Bush admitted on national television that he has violated the law.

Then fine. Draft up Articles of Impeachment and send them to your Congressmen for action. See how far it gets.

Bush's overall ratings are back up to 47% and 56% approve of his handling of the War on Terrorism.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10538012/

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Nice. Blame everything else, but the Administration. Is it any wonder why they feel they can get away with anything, with sheep like you encouraging them?

You're even blaming the laws as being antiquated. Could you clarify what exactly is 'out-of-date', or 'out-of-touch' about the 4th Amendment?

You're saying the Administration should be given even MORE power?

Also, irregardless of how you feel it should be, until it's changed, the law is in black and white. No amount of leeway you can give Bush will change that.

You are preaching to the choir. My opinion will not change no matter what you say. As to alleged violations of Constitutional rights (1st,4th, 5th) in this country, it happens every day. If not by Bush and the Feds, then it is some state, county or city official or law enforcement acting under color of law or authority. Most allegations of violations of Constitutional rights are frivolous and never get far in the Courts.

The bottom line is my family and I feel safer since 9/11 and that is all that matters to me. I am not going to get paranoid about it.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

Actually the law is not black and white otherwise it would always have to be applied equally with no room for interpretation.

Poor grasp. It is usually the act that is interpreted in relation to the law, not the law itself.

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

Did this administration do something wrong? Yes. Did Bush use his executive powers for what he felt to be the best interest of the American people? Yes.

Are you telling me that the US CITIZENS he had tapped weren't "American People"? What do I know, huh?

Is it REALLY in the 'best interest of the people' to set precedence for a direct violation of a constitutional amendment?

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

Will this turn into a fiasco? You better believe it! Especially since the democrats will blame the republican administration and the republicans will blame the democrats for being too liberal and wanting to keep everything all warm and fuzzy.

You need to take your blinders off, if your lower-level thinking is seeing this as simply a "Republican vs Democrat" issue.

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

If punishment is warranted then let those who are without sin cast the first stone.

That is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard, at least in relation to what we are discussing. Since the crime here is a felony. Is this what we should tell juries from here on?

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

I am a firm believer in the constitution of the United States and the bill of rights. If temporarily sacrificing some of my rights so that my family is safe from nuts I will gladly allow it. If it will protect my fellow Americans from another tragedy like 9-11 then go for it.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin


But then again, Ben's antiquated, isn't he?

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

So lets look at the big picture. Do you feel safer today than you did just after September 11, 2001?

It depends. Are you asking me about the increasing number of terrorism recruits, or the government? Personally, neither.

[YogsVR4]

After reading the links I can see its going to be an interesting set of congressional hearings. What the administration did sure was skirting the line and taking a pretty liberal interpretation of the laws as they've been written.

I think they should be getting a court order for each and every wire tap of a US citizen (not foreign nationals, etc.). Its a lot of paperwork, but its what I believe.

As far as being outraged over this. I think most of that comes from people who have a low opinion of the president. Think about how much information the government already has on you and that should be whats outragous. Think about what you put on your 1040, W2s, 1099s and if you've been in the service - they have medical records. This is not to say what they did was legal, but to be outraged that the government has more information is a little bit like complaining that someone threw a bucket of water into the lake.

Aside from the legality issue; the next big question I have is what did or are they doing with the gathered information. Its one thing to have it and its another thing on if and how its used.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Aside from the legality issue; the next big question I have is what did or are they doing with the gathered information. Its one thing to have it and its another thing on if and how its used.

I agree. This goes to the issue of accountability, and is fundamental to the need for judicial approval of such wire taps.

As I suggested earlier, a retroactive review of the need and results of these alleged illegal wire taps would be interesting and IMO necessary to help rebuild the integrity of the office of the President, in relation to this particular issue.

Quote:
"Not to take the thread off topic much, but you have a misconception. Clinton's knob-polishing wasn't the issue and to say other wise is disingenuous. It was always about lying under oath."

There is no misconception at all. The fact that Clinton lied is obvious to all; the last time I looked, sex is still legal. The point is the inequitable comparison of petty partisan political games vs. a pattern of civil rights violations by your elected officials.

[fredjacksonsan]

Here is the most powerful and compelling reason why Bush should only engage in legal wiretaps. Not because he is breaking the law, but because actual criminals that are apprehended due to the illegal wiretaps could be set free on a technicality:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/28/news/spy.php


I think we can all agree on this point. Regardless of anything else, it would be heinous if an illegal wiretap was thrown out and a terrorist allowed to go free.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

I think we can all agree on this point. Regardless of anything else, it would be heinous if an illegal wiretap was thrown out and a terrorist allowed to go free.

Nah. They could always "have an accident" once we knew who they were. ;-)

[fredjacksonsan]

Heh, heh, accident.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

I think we can all agree on this point. Regardless of anything else, it would be heinous if an illegal wiretap was thrown out and a terrorist allowed to go free.

I agree. Good point. Looks like it already has started. Padilla's lawyers filed a brief with the US Supreme Court over the issue of NSA wiretapping. See link below:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=1449118

The case involving Iyman Faris may go a similar route but I believe Faris is screwed even if the wiretap issue is raised. Whether they will prevail remains to be seen. It will be interesting to follow.

[twospirits]

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

If Clinton can get away with having sex in the White House with Monica and lie about it then Bush can authorize a little evesdropping and wiretapping.
At least he admitted to doing it Clinton still denies everything!!!

Originally Posted by MagicRat

The comparision between Bush's flagrent disregard for the Constitution and due process under that law and Clinton's knob-polishing is a little unbalanced. One cannot reasonably compare a serious civil rights and legal violation with a sexual dalliance.

I agree with Magic, even after Yogs comment, I still don't see the comparison of what Clinton did to what Bush did. True he lied under oath, but it mainly affected himself, his family and the trust people had in him, while on the other hand, this incident with Bush, can affect many people and is disregarding the laws (however outdated as per some in this thread) and thats more disturbing.

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

I am a firm believer in the constitution of the United States and the bill of rights. If temporarily sacrificing some of my rights so that my family is safe from nuts I will gladly allow it. If it will protect my fellow Americans from another tragedy like 9-11 then go for it.
...

So lets look at the big picture. Do you feel safer today than you did just after September 11, 2001?

Interesting, on one hand you are a firm believer of the Constitution, yet on the other you wouldn't mind sacrificing some of those very same rights for an avoidance of a repeat of 9/11. Then why have them in the first place. If you or anyone actually think that sacrificing some of the rights would prevent another 9/11 or worse, then you are sadly mistaken. These terrorist are not like anything we have dealt beforehand, they are more organized, more patient and more cunning in the ways they deliver their terror. The Spain attacks were a precursor or a test run of things to come. No matter how many illegal wire taps or illegal searches are performed, will stop a terrorist from strapping a bomb on them selves and hop on a bus or down in the subways or on a bridge. If Israel can't stop them, you think we can. I think not. Sacrificing our rights will only make the terrorist win.
As for your last comment of "Do you feel safer today than you did just after September 11, 2001?", NO. I live in the very same city where most of the innocent lives were taken out in an instint. We can have all the police trying to safeguards our planes, bridges, buses and subways and it still won't stop a nutcase terrorist fanatic from trying to do us harm.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

As far as being outraged over this. I think most of that comes from people who have a low opinion of the president. Think about how much information the government already has on you and that should be whats outragous. Think about what you put on your 1040, W2s, 1099s and if you've been in the service - they have medical records. This is not to say what they did was legal, but to be outraged that the government has more information is a little bit like complaining that someone threw a bucket of water into the lake.

While partly true Yogs, the difference (in my opinion) is that with those documents and military service examples you mentioned, we decided to foreclose such information unlike this incident where the government is taking it without my/our permission.

TS out

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by twospirits

As for your last comment of "Do you feel safer today than you did just after September 11, 2001?", NO. I live in the very same city where most of the innocent lives were taken out in an instint. We can have all the police trying to safeguards our planes, bridges, buses and subways and it still won't stop a nutcase terrorist fanatic from trying to do us harm. TS out

I couldn't help but to lock in on the above comment and I am not speaking for GTPDad (Lynn) who is fully capable of responding on his own but I believe that former Mayor Guliani and Mayor Bloomberg to include all of New York's finest (NYPD) have done an admirable job with security in the Big Apple since 9/11. Nice place to visit but I would not want to live there. However, I do visit the Big Apple at least twice a year to visit my son attending the USMA at West Point and attend various parent activities. From the time I get off the airplane, get my rental car, drive through the city and cross over the bridges to head North I feel very safe and secure. Plus I spend several days visiting all the sights. Sometimes it feels like being in a police state. Furthermore, I feel safer in New York City than my own (El Paso, TX) which happens to be on our wide open border with Mexico.

Whether anyone feels safe since 9/11 is based on his/her subjective belief. However, the record speaks for itself. Have we had any terrorists attacks on US soil since 9/11? My biggest concern are our home grown terrorist nutcases in which most happen to be US citizens. Or have we forgotten Oklahoma City?

While I agree that it still won't stop a nutcase terrorist fanatic from trying to do us harm at least the government is doing something about it compared to pre-9/11 standards which were nil.