Re: The disgraceful left-wing distortion on the law in this matter
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Despite all my comments in these forums, and the fact that I am a conservative christian, I actually am quite a bit of a libertarian republican and regret what I see as the temporary necessity for restrictions on our liberties. I despise government intrusion into one's private affairs, but when terrorists have obviously operated among us, there has to be sacrifices made for the time being.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you think these things are necessary in order to prevent another 9-11.

9-11 Death Toll: 2,752
9-11 Economic Impact: $83 Billion

Iraq Invasion Death Toll: ~2100 Americans, Tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Iraq Invasion Cost: > $200 Billion

[/ QUOTE ]

Very convenient argument where you purposely assume that there are not more terrorist attacks if we let world terrorism and the rogue states who could help them go unchecked.

The future costs of not dealing with today's problems are always greater than the price to be paid today to eliminate them.

Re: The disgraceful left-wing distortion on the law in this matter
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you 100 percent sure that the government is just spying on Terrorists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Show intentional cases where they are not and I'll start having a problem with the president's actions. Until then, I am content to allow the president in conjunction with bipartisan congressional oversight to operate to keep our homeland safe.

Well Lookee Here! Clinton Approved Warrantless Searches Too
 

From Drudge Report and links below to sources:


Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994 : Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Re: Well Lookee Here! Clinton Approved Warrantless Searches Too
 

... and is it a good thing when politicians are making decisions that infringe on individual liberties. If you are, as claimed, a libertarian republican (whatever THAT is) you should be less than sanguine.

The executive order does have some checks in it and in limited to one year. Two good things in an other not so desirable document.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
From Drudge Report and links below to sources:


Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see what the order actually says, shall we?

[ QUOTE ]
Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

[/ QUOTE ]

That certification is one that the search "is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers".

In other words, these are FOREIGN searches, and routine compliance with FISA by Clinton, rather than the "we're-at-war-so-the-law-is-what-I-say-it-is" lawlessness of the Bush administration.

Indeed, the different attitudes of the administrations are readily apparent even in the Byron York NRO piece that you link to as if it was a 1994 Washington Post article. But since it is Byron York/NRO, and BluffTHIS!, and therefore likely to be a total hack job, let's go to Gorelick's actual testimony and see what our firends have left out, shall we?

"Second, the Administration and the Attorney General support, in principle, legislation establishing judicial warrant procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for physical searches undertaken for intelligence purposes. However, whether specific
legislation on this subject is desirable for the practical benefits it might add to intelligence collection, or undesirable as too much of a restriction on the President's authority to collect intelligence necessary for the national security, depends on how the legislation is crafted."

...

"As I stated earlier, we believe that existing directives that regulate the basis for seeking foreign intelligence search authority and the procedures to be followed satisfy all Constitutional requirements. Nevertheless, I reiterate the Administration's willingness to support appropriate legislation that does not restrict the President's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security. We need to strike a balance that sacrifices neither our security nor our civil liberties.

If we can achieve such a balance -- and I believe we can if we use the basic provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- we can accomplish a number of things. First, we will reaffirm our commitment to democratic control of intelligence functions. Second, by mirroring the FISA process including the involvement a neutral judicial official, we will remove any doubt from the minds of reasonable persons concerning the legality of these searches. And finally, we will also provide additional assurances to the patriotic individuals who serve this country in intelligence positions that their activities are proper and necessary."

Soooooo, let's recap. The Clinton administration supported bringing physical searches under the FISA umbrella, and when Congress did so the Clinton administration complied with the law. The Bush administration acknowledges that the law prohibits what it is doing but claims that it has the authority to unilaterally nullify any law that it dosen't like, secretly, because we are at "war". [howie mandel]Equivilant, or not equivalent?[/howie mandel]

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

Any premise or coummication channel used by an agent of a foreign power while on US soil qualifies, and regardless of whether such an agent is a US citizen.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any premise or coummication channel used by an agent of a foreign power while on US soil qualifies, and regardless of whether such an agent is a US citizen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no. Read the statute . The read the rest of the executive order. The paragraph you rely on is specifically directed at subsection (a)(1), which is directed to foreign physical searches. Searches "on U.S. soil" are covered by subsection (b), and are the subject of another paragraph of the executive order.

Re: Well Lookee Here! Clinton Approved Warrantless Searches Too
 

[ QUOTE ]
From Drudge Report and links below to sources:


Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994 : Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your point? It was wrong when Clinton did it and it is wrong now.

Re: Well Lookee Here! Clinton Approved Warrantless Searches Too
 

[ QUOTE ]

What's your point? It was wrong when Clinton did it and it is wrong now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except of course, that BluffTHIS! is wrong, and Clinton complied with the law.

Re: The disgraceful left-wing distortion on the law in this matter
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Despite all my comments in these forums, and the fact that I am a conservative christian, I actually am quite a bit of a libertarian republican and regret what I see as the temporary necessity for restrictions on our liberties. I despise government intrusion into one's private affairs, but when terrorists have obviously operated among us, there has to be sacrifices made for the time being.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you think these things are necessary in order to prevent another 9-11.

9-11 Death Toll: 2,752
9-11 Economic Impact: $83 Billion

Iraq Invasion Death Toll: ~2100 Americans, Tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Iraq Invasion Cost: > $200 Billion

[/ QUOTE ]

Very convenient argument where you purposely assume that there are not more terrorist attacks if we let world terrorism and the rogue states who could help them go unchecked.

The future costs of not dealing with today's problems are always greater than the price to be paid today to eliminate them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm obviously not a security expert, so, honestly, I have no idea whether and to what extent the government's domestic activities have prevented another large-scale terrorist attack.

I just wanted to point out that the human and economic cost of the Iraq war is already 2-3 times that of 9-11. I think a lot of folks are justifiably skeptical that the Iraq war has prevented another 9-11, much less two or three of them.

Re: Well Lookee Here! Clinton Approved Warrantless Searches Too
 

Elliot, since in a post earlier in this thread, it seems that courts have upheld warrantless searches/wiretaps in general, the only question is the target of such searches. And since the Attorney General of the US has vetted the wiretaps going on now, and since you thankfully don't sit on SCOTUS, then my presumption will be that those actions of the president's are in fact legal until and unless SCOTUS holds otherwise.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
Elliot, since in a post earlier in this thread, it seems that courts have upheld warrantless searches/wiretaps in general, the only question is the target of such searches. And since the Attorney General of the US has vetted the wiretaps going on now, and since you thankfully don't sit on SCOTUS, then my presumption will be that those actions of the president's are in fact legal until and unless SCOTUS holds otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt that this will continue to be your presumption regardless of whether any court or congress actually declares these searches to be illegal. When you believe that the law is whatever the president says it is, then by definition you believe that anything the president does is "legal".

In any event, the point of my recent posts was to rebut this "Clinton did it too" nonsense.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
In any event, the point of my recent posts was to rebut this "Clinton did it too" nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you haven't actually. The fact that Clinton did similar things as well makes it much more likely that such actions are in fact legal.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In any event, the point of my recent posts was to rebut this "Clinton did it too" nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you haven't actually. The fact that Clinton did similar things as well makes it much more likely that such actions are in fact legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except, of course, that the "similar things" were different in that Clinton supported legislation requiring court oversight and complied with the law, whereas Bush claims that he has the inherent authority to do as he pleases no matter what the law is.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

Bush's AG has told him that he does have inherent authority, the same as Cinton's asst AG advised him.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bush's AG has told him that he does have inherent authority, the same as Cinton's asst AG advised him.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Clinton administration was of the view that the president had the authority to authorize warrantless "national security" physical searches at a time where such searches were not covered by FISA. I question whether that was even correct; I suspect it was not. But tellingly, the Clinton administration supported putting these searches under the FISA umbrella and complied with FISA when it was done. Bush says that he has the authority to ignore FISA. I understand that you do not see these as different -- like I said, when you start with the mindset that the president has the unchecked power to override any law he likes, then by definition anything the president does is legal. That mindset, in my view, is profoundly un-American. For those of us that prefer the rule of law, the Clinton administration's approach is light years away from the cavalier "my word is law" attitude of the Bushies.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

Well I am sure that terrorists and their operatives in the US are heartened by your attitude that it is better to go through FISA even when doing so would mean that valuable intelligence could be lost. And note that as I mentioned in another post the FISA process is longer due to preparation and docket scheduling time than just the 72 hour time frame in which they act once a motion is heard.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well I am sure that terrorists and their operatives in the US are heartened by your attitude that it is better to go through FISA even when doing so would mean that valuable intelligence could be lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and once the terrorists are able to pull off a successful operation, the same people that helped them not be detected by US authorities will blame Bush for it.

They want to return to the Clinton idea of refusing to take custody of OBL, and then act shocked that OBL killed thousands of Americans.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

Yes and same thing with Sen. Biden's statement that it was important to win in Iraq to prevent an Iranian style autocratic government, but that we had to do it in the next 6 months. The dems whole political strategy is based on damning the administration if they do and damning them if they don't while not presenting any policy alternatives other than NOT and artificial time constraints to problems that can't be fixed in 3 months.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well I am sure that terrorists and their operatives in the US are heartened by your attitude that it is better to go through FISA even when doing so would mean that valuable intelligence could be lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I am sure that terrorists and their operatives in the US, as well as all of our other ideological enemies, are heartened by your attitude that it is better to dispense with the checks and balances in the Constitution in favor of granting a president you support the unchecked power to disregard the law in the name of "national security"

As I've said elsewhere, this position is far more dangerous to the nation than terrorism.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
As I've said elsewhere, this position is far more dangerous to the nation than terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are temporary measures driven by the exigencies of war.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I've said elsewhere, this position is far more dangerous to the nation than terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are temporary measures driven by the exigencies of war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. Surely we do not need to go though history to see the variety of oppresive measures that have been so justified.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

Do you remember in the film The Untouchables where Sean Connery's character asked Costner's character, "What are you willing do do?", and Costner/Ness responded, "All that the law allows". And then Connery asked, "And then what?".

The terrorists have that determination and so should we as far as making temporary exceptions regarding some personal liberties. If we're not willing to do that then either we will fail to defeat them or the cost will be much higher in american lives if we do succeed.

The positions of those such as yourself who see dictatorship looming when we make reasonable sacrifices with restrictions on our liberties during wartime are what makes terrorists and rogue nations think we are weak and that they can defeat us by dragging out a conflict and sapping our political will.

And the sacrifices such as I have adovcated here being correct, are what helps save the lives of our soldiers and intelligence agents in the field. They're doing their duty and we need to do ours to them.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]

The terrorists have that determination and so should we as far as making temporary exceptions regarding some personal liberties. If we're not willing to do that then either we will fail to defeat them or the cost will be much higher in american lives if we do succeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

True; my take however is that we still need to be very careful as to what liberties or rights are reduced or suspended--especially for U.S. citizens. Foreigners who are just visiting and possibly under suspicion should have less rights to protection from search and/or seizure, for instance.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

All men (and women) are created equal.

Sanguinely turning a blind eye to search and seizure of foreign men on our soil is a bad idea and shows a lack of understanding of Liberties. Our courts should afford them the same rights as those given to citizen -- in the matter of criminal proceedings. They obviously have less than equal secondary rights -- like no welfare or immigration rights etc. The fundamental human rights should be the same.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you google for and read some more in depth on this issue, you will find that although it is true that the secret court is fairly speedy in its mostly rubber stamp approvals once the issue has been heard, that it nonetheless is very time consuming to prepare the matter for the court and get it on the docket and heard. That shows that there is in fact an issue of urgency in many of these matters that is hampered by the entire process.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't have anything to do with whether the wiretaps are legal or not. There is a process in place to legally place the wiretaps and the President is delibrately ignoring it and the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

That process must not hamper or prevent operational necessities which occasionally require speedy action. The process is not > than our safety from terrorists when those operational necessities do not involve impinging on liberties on a large scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really doubt the need for speedy action. None of the 9/11 hijackers were U.S. citizens and they were in the country for months or years without being detected. But your point is taken, that's what Pres. is argueing.

Does anybody think, in this day and age of encryption codes that no government can crack, that al-quayda is going to openly transmit its plans via phones, when they can just email them in unbreakable code?

Surely the terrorists are aware of wiretaps and the vulnerability of phone conversations vs. the invulnerability of modern encryption codes.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sanguinely turning a blind eye to search and seizure of foreign men on our soil is a bad idea and shows a lack of understanding of Liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not suggesting "turning a blind eye"; rather, only that they should have somewhat less such protection than U.S. citizens on our soil. After all, they are GUESTS, not citizens. They are here at our pleasure and by our grace. If they are suspected of nebulous wrongdoing, they should quickly be kicked out--just as you would ask a bad dinner guest to leave your house. If they are suspected of serious criminal mischief, of the most serious kind (jeopardizing our lives and liberties through terrorist activities) they should be investigated and possibly detained. In fact, we should make it an openly known policy that all foreign visitors who fall under suspicion of terrorist activity may be so investigated.

[ QUOTE ]
Our courts should afford them the same rights as those given to citizen -- in the matter of criminal proceedings. They obviously have less than equal secondary rights -- like no welfare or immigration rights etc. The fundamental human rights should be the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the HUMAN rights should be the same. But should foreigners on our soil not be eavesdropped upon if suspected of terrorist activity? I think they should be. We should also apprise them up front of that possibility: so if they don't like it, they don't have to come here. That ought to be fair enough by any standard.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, and once the terrorists are able to pull off a successful operation, the same people that helped them not be detected by US authorities will blame Bush for it.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, and the Limbaughs and Hannitys and Cheneys and Roves and Coulters and Savages and Delays and Humes and Barneses wouldn't dare blame the Democrats for trying to stop the Republican Congress from giving their President unchecked power to steal our civil liberties WHEN this attack happens, will they?

Maybe THEN we can get our martial law!

The Democrats are being stupid. Not for their ideals, but for not seeing how this retarded chess match will play out once another (probably more catastrophic) terrorist attack occurs.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

In matters of personal privacy and liberty they should be treated exactly like US citizens. That includes clandestine eavesdropping without due process -- an activity best left to the stalinists and communists.

They are guests and should be treated as guests.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
And the sacrifices such as I have adovcated here being correct, are what helps save the lives of our soldiers and intelligence agents in the field. They're doing their duty and we need to do ours to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show us ONE example where domestically-gathered intelligence has saved the life of a solider in Iraq. Is this like your little belief in god, where you don't have any proof, but, gosh darn it, you just KNOW it's happening, and everyone else had damn well better believe it's happening too?

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
In matters of personal privacy and liberty they should be treated exactly like US citizens. That includes clandestine eavesdropping without due process -- an activity best left to the stalinists and communists.

They are guests and should be treated as guests.

[/ QUOTE ]

There would be nothing wrong with eavesdropping on foreign terror suspects on US soil if we first advise all visiting foreign nationals that they may be eavesdropped upon. Simply announce it as a policy; then, if they wish to be guests or not, under those conditions, they are free to do whatsoever they might wish. The "due process", in this case, would be simply forewarning then that they might be monitored should they choose to visit, as might any visiting foreign nationals.

Nothing underhanded or unconstitutional about that.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

I am not talking consitiutional per so. It may or may not be.

I am talking about Americanism. Americans do not indulge in clandestine eavesdropping, unlimited detentions without full due process of the law. It is completely un-American behaviour.

We have a good law enforcement system, we can also make it better. Concentrate on that not on KGB tactics.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]


I am talking about Americanism. Americans do not indulge in clandestine eavesdropping, unlimited detentions without full due process of the law. It is completely un-American behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see nothing wrongly clandestine or un-American about making it a KNOWN policy that foreign nationals suspected of terrorist-related activities on US soil may be investigated or may have their communications monitored.

Also, I didn't suggest *unlimited* detentions for suspected foreign nationals on US soil.

[ QUOTE ]
We have a good law enforcement system, we can also make it better. Concentrate on that not on KGB tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

The war against terrorism is more than merely a matter for law enforcement. Terrorists--and jihadists--are more than mere criminals. They are at WAR against our country, and against other Western democracies. All foreign nationals should expect a little extra attention when they CHOOSE to visit the United States--and in fact every foreign national who visits the USA should be so advised.

The terror threat to the USA comes almost entirely from foreign nationals. It would be illogical, and even foolhardy, to treat them exactly the same as US citizens when it comes to possibly suspect activity.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

I said without due process. I am happy to have phone taps, searches, seizures as long as law enforcement has gone to a judge and received an OK. This is due process. This is how Americans operate when it comes to invading the space of men (and women). This is how it should be.

I am happy to have someone held indefinitely as long as the get a hearing and a lawyer and are treated just like we treat any other criminal.

Having one person or group (and specially the executive) decide what is OK to do and what is not OK to do when invading the rights of men -- that is what communists and fascists do. It is not OK, it is not American, it is entirely reprehensible.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I didn't suggest *unlimited* detentions for suspected foreign nationals on US soil.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is not acceptable for any agency of the US to hold some one indefinitely without due process whether they are on US soil or not. It is unacceptable for any agency to transfer a prisoner to a secret jail in another country to get around the basic human rights as defined in the statement: all men are created equal.

[ QUOTE ]
The terror threat to the USA comes almost entirely from foreign nationals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now the far bigger threat to us is within not without. The terrorists may be tearing at the flesh of America, these activities are tearing at the heart and soul of America.

As someone said in another thread, and as I have said in the past, the war on terror is fearmongering. It is not a war, there is no defined enemy no defined endstate. Using the War on Terror to erode the principles of America -- that is the bigger threat by far.

If you have even the slightest streak of Libertarianism in you, it should be obvious.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is not a war, there is no defined enemy no defined endstate. Using the War on Terror to erode the principles of America -- that is the bigger threat by far.

[/ QUOTE ]

It IS a war; it's just a new kind of war.

I do agree with you, though, that our principles should not be "eroded." That is why I think the government should simply make it policy and publicly announce that all foreign nationals visiting may be investigated if deemed suspicious--and that that investigation may include surveillance. Putting this aboveboard and making it plain that that is policy would be the right thing to do. And again, if visitors have second thoughts, well, nobody is forcing them to visit.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
It IS a war; it's just a new kind of war.

I do agree with you, though, that our principles should not be "eroded." That is why I think the government should simply make it policy and publicly announce that all foreign nationals visiting may be investigated if deemed suspicious--and that that investigation may include surveillance. Putting this aboveboard and making it plain that that is policy would be the right thing to do. And again, if visitors have second thoughts, well, nobody is forcing them to visit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something in my gut tells me that those with business interests in foreign tourism (which constitutes many different sectors of the economy, all of which, by some measure, have a powerful lobby advocating on their behalf) may not be in favor of such a public pronouncement.

There's probably a whole host of reasons why that message isn't one that's particularly feasible for the United States to broadcast, even if true.

Re: *** You are ignoring this user ***
 

A useful feature.

Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
 

The concept of advertising that we are monitoring foreign travellers is slightly worse (in the economic-social-political sense) then the horrible (in the ethical, true global libertarian sense) idea of doing the secret monitoring.

My opinion.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

You realize of course that Clinton DID these things right?

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
You realize of course that Clinton DID these things right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill Clinton was a major proponent of and signed the USA PATRIOT act?

Bill Clinton ordered the detainment of a US Citizen, characterized him as an "enemy combatant," and intended to hold him for an unspecified period of time without access to any judicial oversight to determine if he was, in fact, an "enemy combatant"?

I guarantee if the roles were reversed and Clinton acted the same way Bush did following 9/11 --- doing the exact same things --- you would have hoardes of Conservatives (who now follow Bush because they trust him) up in arms about bad Big Government and vice versa.

Clinton might have done some similar things, but they were not widely known about because the country wasn't focussing on those things. 9/11 changed that.