Keep in mind that UNDER THE LAW the NSA can wiretap anyone, anywhere, anytime, with no delay at all...and then get the wiretap approved after the fact.
So there is no hindrance at all on getting wiretaps, yet the Bush administration is telling Americans that there is a hindrance, and it is helping the terrorists if they can't wiretap in complete secrecy.
So the real issue here isn't wiretaps, which the NSA can do whenever they want, IT'S ABOUT HAVING A THIRD PARTY REVIEWING WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
THERE IS ONLY ONE REASON FOR THEM TO AVOID OVERSIGHT: SO THEY CAN COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
2006-08-17 14:32:45 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"if your not helping the terrorist then there nothing to be afraid of."
This level of ignorance is a threat to our very lives...
2006-08-17 15:00:23 · update #1
First of all, you are wrong. The NSA does not have power to "...wiretap anyone, anywhere, anytime, with no delay at all". In fact the NSA does not have the authority to even get a court order to wiretap US Citizens PERIOD. NSA is a national intelligence gathering entity that can only spy on non-US citizens. So that pretty much blows your premise. The real issue IS wiretaps and the governments ability to do them on the fly while chasing leads. After the fact third party oversight is not a problem. Having to go through judicial review for every wiretap makes government investigators less nimble and tracking terrorists more difficult.
2006-08-17 14:53:59 · answer #1 · answered by Will 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He's not a traitor as such but he, like other presidents before him, does seem to believe he is at times above the law and puts a lot of effort into keeping what he is actually doing as secret as possible.
The poor advice he receives leads him to assume that the public are stupid and the judiciary will side with him.
It is not difficult for any government around the world to eavesdrop on its own citizens; in the US the court which decides has refused 3 times in over 30 years.
The important thing is you need a valid reason other than "the President would like it to happen in the interests of security".
Based on past evidence, an administration can find a way round a court injunction without too much effort and carry on their activities as before. The checks and balances need to be increased rather than reigned in.
2006-08-17 21:50:17 · answer #2 · answered by Bart S 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. If he wants to seek unchecked power, and does it within the confines of the law, that may be terrifying, but it's not treason.
But willful betrayal of his oath of office, by deliberately violating federal law and ignoring constitutional requirements is arguably treason.
It's definitely grounds for impeachment.
Article II Section 4. "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
{EDIT to Splatt} Read my Y! 360 blog. I detail several of the violations, along with citations to the appropriate federal statutes. The other appropriate sections you want are in Artice I, Sections 1 and 8, Article III Section 1, plus 200+ years of case history. Let me know if you have any questions. I'll wait while you catch up.
2006-08-17 21:53:15 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush is just doing some major scaremongering, and yes it's an act of treason.
There's this cartoon I have saved--Patriot Acts, 1775 and 2006. On the 1775 it shows Patrick Henry saying "Give me liberty or give me death!" On the 2006 side it shows Bush saying, "Give up your liberties or we're all gonna die!"
No one's helping any terrorist by making sure the Constitution is abided by. Shredding the Constitution won't protect us from The Terrorists, either.
I just hope people realize their Fourth Amendment rights are being trampled upon when they're at the airport--unlawful searches and seizures.
2006-08-17 21:39:23 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Not sure if what he has done qualifies as "traitor" but he has made eminently clear that he is not trustworthy. The NSA fiasco is one major example. I think that the citizens of the US and of the world are less safe, less secure, and less well off than we were when W was first elected. I hope these midterm elections send a strong signal that US voters aren't going to take this anymore!
2006-08-17 21:44:03 · answer #5 · answered by suzy q 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. He is committing treason against the country.
In fact, a lot of the people in our government are committing treason against us.
Liberty, freedom and justice come before safety.
2006-08-18 00:32:27 · answer #6 · answered by cat_Rett_98 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
These violations are catching up with the Bush administration. Like Watergate and Nixon, it takes years for our system to work. Who will pardon Bush?
2006-08-17 21:38:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Traitor is pretty harsh, but he is endeavoring to make the presidents power absolute and that makes him criminal as he swore to uphold the constitution of the U.S. and using terror as an excuse is unacceptable.
2006-08-17 21:40:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bravo! Brave! Brava!
2006-08-17 21:38:22 · answer #9 · answered by Julzz 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
he is a treasonous traitorous president. but he is only abusing the powers the sheep have authorized him too. Here is what they say to justify it..."well I have nothing to hide so its ok if you take my freedoms away"
WTF??? republicans are idots!!
Ive never been to NYC so you might as well level it. it makes a much sense
2006-08-17 21:42:31 · answer #10 · answered by Charles Dobson Focus on the Fam 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋