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 Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
OK, so you people don't care that your President is a criminal, as long as he says he's protecting you from terrorists???
I don't get it.
2006-09-11 06:00:57 · update #1
Don't worry, they don't get it either.
For some bizarre reason, the same people who are frantic about deporting someone who skipped filling out immigration paperwork are perfectly fine with willful violation of federal law for no valid reason. It's irrational, and everyone else knows that.
Anyone who has bothered to actually read the laws knows that the entire program could have been done legally. That's why most of the people who support it never bothered to read the laws. (link below)
But apparently the nation just doesn't care about the law anymore.
2006-09-11 06:08:07 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, not in the least. If he were using it for a Watergate type operation I would. But anything Bush or any other President does in the way of survailance to stop terrorist from attacking again is fine with me. Liberals and other Democrats said he didn't do enough before 9/11 and now the same folks are saying he's doing too much.
In light of all the things Clinton could have done and didn't regarding UBL he should have been taken out and shot. I'm more in favor if someone doing something to try and correct a problem than I am avoiding doing anything in fear of being wrong.
What he lied about was inconsequental. What could the Republicans had done if he had just said, "Yep I got a *******. So?" But no one even Bill Clinton can stand up infront of God and everyone and say, "I never had sex with that woman." when he KNEW he did and get by with it.
And OBTW the Democrats failure to oust Clinton in my opinion cost them the 2000 election. They didn't have a sitting President running for office and they couldn't claim any moral highground. That alone would have given them what they needed to take Florida. While you are thinking about it, why couldn't Gore carry Tennessee or Arkansas? Either of those states would have made Florida a mote point.
2006-09-11 06:22:39 · answer #2 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't bother me at all. With as many leaks as have happened in just the Plame investigation, what gives you any reson to suspect the President has any faith in the FISA to keep any warrants classified and protected? It's not like the Washington Post has tried to help out by keeping information secret either, why would the President even bother? We're at war, lives are at stake every single day. I could give a rat's *** about "technically he broke the law" and democrat "gotcha-ism". It's a bunch of horse crap that deserves in one of teddy kennedy's morning "pick-me-up" from Jack Daniels.
2006-09-11 05:56:42 · answer #3 · answered by trc_6111 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He's a racketeer. Raided the Clinton surplus in the Treasury with tax cuts for his very rich cronies; then indebted future generations to the Chinese for a war on behalf of his pals in the Military Industrial Complex.
What next?
2006-09-11 05:54:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would give up some personal privacy for protection against crazies. I'm not doing anything to be ashamed for or need to have hidden. I'm glad our president is trying to do all he can to help us avoid another nasty incident.
2006-09-11 06:32:19 · answer #5 · answered by leannedtm 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When we lose our liberty's, freedoms, or change our lifestyle to defend against a possible terrorist attack then the terrorist have one. They have accomplished what they wanted to do. Bush is using terrorism to further his agenda and that is just to wrong.
2006-09-11 05:53:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush has abused the law even when he worked for enron he has always seen the law as something for someone else not him.
2006-09-11 05:51:38 · answer #7 · answered by region50 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree with you! It is amazing what he and his adm. has been allowed to get away with. He has broken so many laws and because of him so many people have died. I do not understand myself how any one can support him.
2006-09-11 05:51:36 · answer #8 · answered by rose 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
And YOU would have done different when your country was attacked?
I bet not. I also bet you have not served in your countries Armed Forces?
I bet you have not even voted.
I bet you are a loser
Just sit there and type--your fellow countrymen and women will protect you. Like they always have!
2006-09-11 05:59:01 · answer #9 · answered by Weatherman 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Wouldn't you want to know if the terrorists are planning another attack? Or do you want to see thousands more Americans die?
http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/images/CoxAndForkum.gif
2006-09-11 06:01:26 · answer #10 · answered by nighthawk8713 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋