|
|
|
|
#1
12-30-2005, 11:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Do you support Bush?
"it's certainly conceiveable that his actions are intended for our protection; saying he's asserted that he can go unchecked whenever he wants is a big jump."
I agree with the first part. He may have acted in what he thought were national security interests. Let's assume that he did. I don't see the big jump that you see in the second part of your statement though. The arguments that he, the attorney general, and the vice president have made assert that he has inherent powers under the constitution to act in the national interest. And that those powers permit him to wiretap, without a warrant, when he sees fit. They are saying precisely that he can go unchecked whenever he wants. 
|
|
#2
12-31-2005, 01:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do you support Bush?
"The arguments that he, the attorney general, and the vice president have made assert that he has inherent powers under the constitution to act in the national interest. And that those powers permit him to wiretap, without a warrant, when he see fit. They are saying precisely that he can go unchecked whenever he wants."
Well I would agree that he has asserted that he has the power to go unchecked, whenever he wants, as long his actions are necessary to national security.... and if that is the case, I don't have a problem with it. Elliot, I'm just telling you the administration's stance on it (as far as I know). Do I really believe it? Sure. But I haven't informed myself on this subject as much as an uber-partisan Democrat looking for any reason to complain. Perhaps you're better informed. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#3
12-31-2005, 01:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do you support Bush?
"Well I would agree that he has asserted that he has the power to go unchecked, whenever he wants, as long his actions are necessary to national security.... and if that is the case, I don't have a problem with it."
Fair enough. But I sure have a problem with it. Unhchecked power is dangerous. All tyrants claim they are protecting "national security" when doing their dirty deeds. I'm not saying Bush is a tyrant, I'm saying unchecked power is a road to tyrannical actions, paved with good intentions or not. The FISA court has been quite generous in its interpretation of national security, approving thousands of wire taps while turning down only a handful. Bush could have wiretapped anyone he wanted to and had 72 hours to get approval thereafter. All such requests have not suffered from the court not being able to give approval because of time constraints, as a member of the court is always in Washington for just such reason. There is absolutely no national security reason--security, time, strong possibility of wiretaps being refused by the court--for Bush going around FISA. That leads to the possibility that there are other reasons for it. Without imputing illicit motives to the administration, one can simply listen to what they are saying. And what they are saying is that the president's powers have been eroded and they want them "restored." So there we are on the road to tyrannical actions/ an imperial presidency.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
