Constructive gadfly

The site overwhelmingly is on the side of Bush’s approach to spying at home. Echoing fear-mongers across the nation on the spy issue, there is little room for debate. If we don’t go along with the manner in which the CIA and NSA gather evidence the following is shouted out:

            Listening in on terrorists will prevent another Sept. 11. [as though helter-skelter listening in on tens of thousands of citizens will defy the huge odds]

            Blocking this espionage would undercut the war on terror. [I thought the war on terror was in Iraq and we’re not apparently doing too well even there listening in on insurgents]

            Listening in is essential to our national security, according to Bush. He doesn’t even bother to add the end justifies the means. [I thought the development of democracy in the Middle East was the essence of the war on terrorism]

            Can’t fool around with red-tape and allow the warm tip to grow cold.[who are they kidding here? — you mean they are that stupid to listen in without taping the conversations]

            Opposing monitoring at a fearful time when vigilance should be at a high level of alert is irresponsible. [Like letting sharp-pointed scissors and not checking cargo on airplanes, huh]

            Terrorists don’t play by the rules, so why should we?[the high and mighty should stoop to their miserable level]

            Senators are more concerned over civil rights than saving lives and weaken defense.[You said that I didn’t]

            The president is the only elected official sworn to protect citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic.[therefore the right to violate the law]


Comments (Page 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Dec 28, 2005
all you folks
??????
on Dec 28, 2005
We need to have this discussion (a discussion, not just a series of sarcastic zingers) and sort out what risks we as a country are willing to take. - Daiwa

Thank you for a human answer, Daiwa. I appreciate your attitude and fully agree with you.
on Dec 28, 2005
We need to have Congress understand what Bush is doing and then decide how far he will be allowed to go. Bush just telling us he has the legal authority and that he needs to do what he is doing in not acceptable. The 1978 law was enacted by Congress to control the very thing that Bush is doing. It took three years to craft that law after Nixon. We can not simply allow Bush to bypass this law.
on Dec 28, 2005
So, Col, you see no difference between spying on political opponents and wiretapping civil rights activists, and tapping phone numbers found on computers on raids Al Qaeda hideouts in other countries?

I mean, if you have proof that Bush has been using the NSA to make dirty on the DNC or someone like that, speak up, but so far Bush seems to be doing what he claims to, doesn't he?
on Dec 28, 2005
I did not say that. WHAT I SAID is Congress needs to understand WHAT Bush has been doing and then decide HOW FAR THE President will be allowed to go. That was what the 1978 law was about and Bush has admitted he is ignoring the requirements of that law!
on Dec 28, 2005
Either he has broken the law, Col, or he hasn't. An investigation will take care of that, but the bounds themselves are already decided, thanks. If a court decides he overstepped them, fine, but the Senate has already spoken and they don't need to sit around and reinterpret the laws they have already passed out of political vendetta.

You feel comfortable wasting tax payer dollars keeping Bush's name in the press, making daisy-chain subcommities, etc., reinventing checks and balances, but in reality this is in the hands of the judiciary now, or it should be. If they interpret Bush's actions as illegal, and that they merit investigation, then pass it back over to the executive and let law enforcement take care of it.

People like you want to turn it into a Legislative feeding frenzy just for propaganda's sake.
on Dec 28, 2005
So, Col, you see no difference between spying on political opponents and wiretapping civil rights activists, and tapping phone numbers found on computers on raids Al Qaeda hideouts in other countries?
To an extent you are right: there is definitely a big difference, but it only takes one sleaze ball to violate the spirit of tracking down terrorists by not resisting the temptation to blackmail those in the political arena. You may trust Bush, but Cheney and his bunch should not be. Granted, there will always be inadvertent intrusion on innocent private citizens, but there must be impartial oversight of abuse.
on Dec 28, 2005

I did not say that. WHAT I SAID is Congress needs to understand WHAT Bush has been doing and then decide HOW FAR THE President will be allowed to go. That was what the 1978 law was about and Bush has admitted he is ignoring the requirements of that law!

The Bush administration's position is that the executive is not bound by the 1978 law but rather that the constitution grants the executive branch broad powers in time of war.  You may not agree with it but Bush's position is that the 1978 law is basically unconstitutional. 

Congress also enacted the war powers act in the early 70s and every President since then has asserted that they would not abide by that "law" as they believe it infringes on executive authority.

on Dec 29, 2005

I am for preventing another tragic terrorist attack if at all possible. We need to figure out how we can do that without all privacy being lost.
How's this for a start? A non or bipartisan agency that answers to a commission consisting of a member from each of the three branches. It would be free to do surveillance targeted by substantially honest suspicion; when it turns out to be unconvincing all records of inadvertency are destroyed.  

at what point will you finally agree this administration is convinced it's a law unto itself?
You might just as well beat a fist into a brick wall: the admission will never transpire. Just because the world sees the administration's glaring mistakes, its vision is poor; the admininstration is infallible!

on Dec 29, 2005
steve: sure, but then a lot of governmental powers can be abused. We can either spend all our time trying to make unabusable powers, or punish abuses when we find them.
on Dec 29, 2005
How's this for a start? A non or bipartisan agency that answers to a commission consisting of a member from each of the three branches. It would be free to do surveillance targeted by substantially honest suspicion; when it turns out to be unconvincing all records of inadvertency are destroyed.

The NSA is an executive branch agency that falls under the purview of the Department of Defense. It reports to the Director of National Intelligence, a Presidential appointee.
on Dec 29, 2005
Draginol

Your post #55 hits the nail on the head.

The Bush administration's position is that the executive is not bound by the 1978 law but rather that the constitution grants the executive branch broad powers in time of war. You may not agree with it but Bush's position is that the 1978 law is basically unconstitutional.

The President does not under our Constitution have the authority to decide if a law is Constitutional or not. That is the responsibility of the Courts. Bush and Cheney are abusing the power granted to the Executive Branch by our Constitution. This MUST STOP!
on Dec 29, 2005
"The President does not under our Constitution have the authority to decide if a law is Constitutional or not. That is the responsibility of the Courts. Bush and Cheney are abusing the power granted to the Executive Branch by our Constitution. This MUST STOP!"


That's the col in a nutshell. The courts must decide, but since it is Bush I already know what the outcome should be, so THIS MUST STOP...

why bother with courts at all? Let's just give the Col a crown and move somewhere else.
on Dec 29, 2005
You have the person who would like the Crown wrong. That is GWB. Your reply is another example of when a fact you do not like is presented (The court not the president judge if laws are constitutional) you attack the person rather then address the issue.
on Dec 30, 2005
steve: sure, but then a lot of governmental powers can be abused. We can either spend all our time trying to make unabusable powers, or punish abuses when we find them.
The labor we expend for being a democracy--try like hell to make better laws.

why bother with courts at all?
Precisely GW's stance!
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6