please first know this is a serious question, I am not in fact a "libtard" or any other such thing but in fact a centrist who is genuinely curious about something that doesn't seem to make any sense....I'm all for wiretapping anyone we need to, but the laws he violated already allowed this. Under the law, Bush and/or law enforcement was able to do whatever they needed as quickly as they needed, as long as they got a warrant +++AFTERWARDS+++. This rule is to make sure that the powers are NOT being abused and ARE only being used on legitimate suspects, so when Bush refuses even this it is extremely suspicious. I have never heard an actual defense of this detail, can anybody offer one? It might even be a convincing argument I haven't thought of.
And nobody ask what I'm afraid of, even if I haven't done anything wrong the point is that a President could use this power on political enemies and subvert our democracy. If Hillary wins, do you really want her to have all these same powers?
2007-10-17
13:34:23
·
17 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics