George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them

Holmes, Wow, Bush, a politician, is a hypocrite. Chalk that one up as a first for the record books. Does anyone have any idea who the last Pres was who DIDN'T break a law? Truman? Dude, you, and everyone else who is up in arms about this needs to reacquaint themselves with the War Powers Act, how it came to be, and how our past executives have pretty much done whatever they felt like doing 'in time of war' or national crisis. Presidents as far back as Jefferson, heck Adams even, were accused of bypassing the constitution and ignoring the other branches of govt.I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's the way it is, has been, and will be. I think you're just makin' a fuss cuz you don't like Dubya. How about a Dem forcing Americans into "internment" camps just because they were of Japanese decent? Did FDR and co have 'the right' to do that? They did it anyway. Congress agreed - much like the joint intel committee agreed with GWB here. In theory I agree, in practice it's impossible to prevent the executive branch from stretching the limits of its power ESPECIALLY when Congress doesn't oppose it. Almost every single president (I can think of) has done it in one form or another. No I don't. I think allowing this type of intrusion outside of legal guidelines (e.g. WARRANT) is abominable and I am dubious as to the need or effectiveness of this tactic. It depends. How ambiguous is that? In this particular case, however, I am glad the whistleblowers spoke up.

Actually I think the 'naughty' list is just as long as the 'nice.'Just off the top of my head:Jefferson - initiated his own war with barbary coast pirates without consent of Congress (pre- War Powers Act)Lincoln - suspension of habeus corpus, detained or jailed Maryland govt officials to prevent a vote of secession from the union, etc. etc.FDR - Internment of AmericansJFK & LBJ - deployment of US troops to Vietnam for a period longer than allowed in War Powers ActNixon - deployment of troops and bombing of VC targets in Laos/Cambodia, don't forget Watergate and the plumbersReagan - Iran/ContraClinton - bombing 'suspected' terrorist targets such as pharmacological factories without provocationI'm pretty sure John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Wilson, and Ike had charges of presidential abuse levelled at them as well, but can't remember the details. I'm sure the list is quite long. Say what? Clinton gets the award for most times busted lying to the public. Not misinterpretation, not different point of view, just straight out lying to our faces and expecting us to believe it.

Yeah somehow 'lusting in his heart' just doesn't seem like a breach of constitutional authority - especially after Clinton (ba dum bum!) Well I'd like to see your list of the committe members claiming that. Smacks of rats fleeing the sinking ship to me. So far all I'm aware of is one Dem claiming that while he didn't go on record opposing the decision, he did oppose it verbally and even wrote himself a note about it as proof. You know, for later. Dude, I think you are way off here. What about the 14th ammendment? Not to mention the second, fourth, sixth, and ninth.No way can you argue that throwing native born American citizens into internment camps simply because they were Nisei is legal or that unauthorized wiretaps are anywhere near as abominable as what amounts to arrest and imprisonment without a trial.This message has been edited by custard, 12-21-2005 10:21 AM

Right Rockefeller! Ha ha ha, what an idiot! I heard that on the newswire. OK, gotcha. Yeah, but the US imprisoning non-US citizens is a LOT different in my book than the US imprisoning its own citizens. And lets be honest, those guys in Gitmo are suspected terrorists. The poor sods in the US during WWII were average citizens, women and children. Guys like a five-year-old George Takei for crying out loud! You don't put Sulu in prison without a trial!! This message has been edited by custard, 12-21-2005 11:22 AM

So that's a moot point, right? It has no impact on my statement whatsoever unless we KNOW US citizens are detained. In any case, I'm not advocating gitmo detainees (nor am I opposed), I'm stating that the US imprisoning its own citizens without trial is worse, in my opinion, than imprisoning non-US citizens w/out trial.Theodoric:
Do you have evidence these people AREN'T terrorists? If not, it's pretty pointless arguing this hypothetical. Until demonstrated otherwise, I will trust that the right people have been detained.Dan: Jose Padilla? You mean the gang member and convicted murderer who palled around with Al Qaeda buddies, went to Iraq and was just charged with "providing - and conspiring to provide - material support to terrorists, and conspiring to murder individuals who are overseas".That Jose Padilla? Yeah, I'm all broken up over what happened to him. I mean, if the govt can do that to a guy like him, then it can... wait a second, I'm nothing like him nor is 99.9% of the US.Why am I supposed to feel sorry for him again?

Dude, you seem to be mistaking me for someone else. I'm the guy who AGREED that illegal wiretaps are bad. BAD! All I did was rank them in order of their enormity.1- Imprisoning innocent US citizens without charge or trial (Japanese internment camps)2- Wiretapping US citizens w/out a warrant.3- Detaining/Imprisoning non-US citizens w/out charge or trial.I suppose that scumbag Padilla falls somewhere between 2 and 3 although as far as I'm concerned he relinquished his citizenship when he went to Iraq.Did Bush exceed his constitutional authority to tap US citizens - it certainly seems so. I want to see who else (senators) were involved.
I still regard it as a lesser injustice than the internment camps even if congress went along with it.Congress also went along with slavery for years and I would consider that to be a greater injustice than any yet cited.Holmes, you seem to get hung up on the 'legality' of the injustice. That's why I think you let your dislike for Dubya sway you. No way is a few hundred wiretaps of suspected terrorists even close to internment or slavery - both sanctioned by the other branches of govt at the time.

You're kidding, right? Let me count the ways:1- I was never in a gang
2- I don't have a police record
3- I never murdered someone
4- I was never convicted of murder
5- I have never even MET anyone convicted of murder
6- I never went to terrorist training camps in Afghanistan
7- I actually FOUGHT against Saddam Hussein
8- I was decorated for fighting against Saddam HusseinI can unequivocally say, I am NOTHING like this guy. Into conspiracies much? Gee wiz guy, you can try to make it sound like Jose was just your average ordinary Jose before the Bush cronies got a hold of him, but how did they go back in time and make him a murdering scumbag?Hate to break it to you but most of the time good citizens don't get framed by the big bad government. In fact, I'd bet my life that it almost never happens. Oh wait, I already have.

And your evidence for this position would be???? Actually we DO have an idea about what he did: he went to Afghanistan and Iraq. At least if you aren't a govt conspiracy theorist who believes the US is crucifying this poor innocent man for? For what reason exactly?

Yep. Has been done. Probably is being done - albeit on a much smaller scale. And probably will be done again. That's life. Not like it's unique to the US. OK. Let me try this approach: This revelation doesn't bother me that much because considering the history of this country, I'm not particularly surprised (Hoover anyone?) and because it appears to be happening on a very small scale with a select number of individuals.Is it wrong? It seems to be, but the more I read the more I'm not sure. Supposedly only calls/emails where one party was outside the country were monitored. Seems as though this could be a loophole - albeit a sketchy one.Should it stop? Probably. Again, we spy on foreign countries and foreign nationals all the time. Should the foreign nationals be exempt from surveilance because they are called from the US by a US citizen? Probably not. Although it appears they are tapping US lines and trying to work a loophole.Should Bush get impeached? Dunno. I need more info about who was involved approving this and see what the courts say.Will Bush get impeached. I really doubt it. Not unless NWR's worst conspiracy theories are true.

He's getting one, he's been indicted. Should it have happened sooner? Of course. Well wikipedia DOES mention he went to Iraq here .If you have credible evidence to the contrary, post away.In any case, if it's true he went to Afghani terror camps, it doesn't really matter anyway. NO, you are missing MY point. My point is that the US should have charged him when they first grabbed him AND that I won't lose a wink of sleep over some piece of garbage having his rights violated. If it were my neighbor or someone I served in the Gulf with then yeah, I'd be up in arms.But this guy should have been executed for murder before any of this happened. I'm not some twenty-something idealist who thinks everyone is equal under the law and that everyone is treated the same.Rich get better justice than poor. Repeat felons get treated worse than average folks who make a mistake - i.e. Misdemeanor. And people with a murderous past who become Islamic fundamentalists, hang out with suspected terrorists, and travel to the terrorist centers of the world after 9/11 will be treated differently than everyone else.That's reality. There is no morality here. It just IS.

NOTHING is more important than a blowjob. But I wasn't an advocate for the Clinton impeachment either. You make a good argument. I am honestly too ignorant of the situation - i.e. who needed to sign off on what, or how the courts will rule on the 'one party was out of the country' argument.If the courts say he broke the law, then he should get impeached. No argument there.And yes, when you find it you should stop it so it doesn't get worse. Absolutely.