The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue

[Rockatansky]

[ 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 ]

The U.S. military is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing; fighting the war on foreign soil. Since 9/11 when was the last attack on American soil?

[/ QUOTE ]

would you like to buy my magic rock that keeps tigers away?

It is a shame that at a time of war, we cannot be supportive of our Commander in Chief. At a time when Islamic terrorists want nothing more than to kill every last one of us I personally see nothing wrong with this. Do you know of a single instance where an inoccent person has suffered as an example? In this war against muslim extremists he is only acting to uphold the oath he took on the day he was sworn in as President to protect his fellow Americans. There is federal case law supporting what he has done. It is perfectly legal.

The truth of the matter is that if it were a liberal president, those of you that are complaining would be standing by this right now. Hell, we see how ineffective President Clinton was at fighting terrorism but all you lib's can do is put down the president that IS doing something about it.

[AceHigh]

[ 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.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush in 2004:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

[/ QUOTE ]

I was able to find this quote through a google search, including on the White House webpage. Despite disagreeing with many of Bush's policies and his conception of how to deal with terrorism, I have tried very hard not to overstate his flaws and defects. I have not been in a rush to call him a liar.

But this seems to me a clear indication that he has lied to the American people as to what the government is doing. This, to me, is a very serious breach of trust. I do believe that Mr. Bush is doing what he thinks is best for America, but I find it very troubling that he believes that he is justified in lying directly to the American people. I already do not like how much this administration withholds information from American citizens and makes it very difficult to be well-informed about what is happening in our government, but the outright dishonesty here is at another level entirely.

[ratso]

it is mid-term election time folks. the "out of power party" does (and has done this) for decades. it is politics...not ethics or anything else adnirable. it is pure bull#@it

[ratso]

during the vietnam era, i was aligned (and jailed) with the far-left. i thought i was correct and ethical etc. the real world is survival of the fittest. the islamic people know this, and the islamic facists also know this. they cannot win the war but they can win the hearts and minds of amerikan fools which can turn the tide. compare facist germany with facisit islam, not vietnam. i spent time in the middle east. most of the middle eastern people like us and respect us for our might and our ethics. the news media want only to put in front of a sponsor. how do they do it? you be thejudge. it is not about bush vs. kerry. i can't decide who is sleezer. ed kennedy...it does not get sleezer than him (leaves a girl to drown while he calls his lawyer for an alabi). wake up boys and girls. it's your amerika.

[ACPlayer]

[ 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.

I am not too troubled by a stronger presidency in general because congress, though the sovereign in our 3 branches, is too fragmented to lead in times of crisis. Another reason is that just as the Federalist Papers writers predicted two centuries ago, the biggest threat to the separation of powers can come from the judiciary, and I believe that has happened in the past 30 years and so a counterweight is needed.

And the fact of the matter is that any president who seeks to assert more privileges and power can only do so with the tacit acquiesence of the american people. If the democrats had any real cohesive agenda other than saying NOT to the repubs without offerring alternatives, then even the fact that they are currently in the minority in both houses would keep the president from enjoying as much support of the people as he does for his actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the defense of the Liberties even when you see apparent justification for the taking of the liberties that gives the lover of freedom great pause.

Defending the liberties when you oppose the reasons for the takings is easy.

[ QUOTE ]
If Bill Clinton had done the exact same things as Bush is doing, to those on both the right and the left, would your opinion change as to whether it was appropriate?

Consider: The PATRIOT Act, the Padilla case (and similar actions), the wiretapping issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. If Clinton had done this I would have thought the same thing -- a dangerous, unprecedented power grab that threatens the foundation of our nation.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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.