A federal court has ruled that the NSA's domestic surveillance program, personally authorized by Bush, is illegal:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060818/wl_afp/usjusticeintelligence_060818004235
I still hear people defending Bush because he supposedly did this to catch terrorists. Does it matter at all to you that he broke the law doing it? Shouldn't he have used existing legal channels, which already allow secret surveillance?
If you supported impeaching Clinton over an inconsequential lie, I don't see how you can excuse Bush's illegal actions. (In fact, I'll retroactively support Clinton's impeachment if Bush is put on trial for his domestic and international crimes.)
Don't tell me that we should overlook legal technicalities to protect American lives, because Bush could have done all the surveillance he needed through the FISA court!
Does anyone have a cogent answer for why they support a criminal President?
2006-09-11
05:47:41
·
17 answers
·
asked by
rainfingers
4
in
Law & Ethics