Why can’t Bush follow the law?

Question

I want the FBI, CIA and whoever else needs to, to eavesdrop on terrorists, but I also want the president to follow the law.

The FISA law says a warrant is required within 72 hours of a domestic wiretap. It gived the Presidents flexibility to act quickly if he needs to, but at the same times keep him accountable to follow the law. If Bush thinks 72 hours is not enough time I would support changing the law to give him more time, but Bush has opposed any changes to the law. Instead he simply chose to ignore the law.

Why have Republicans, who jumped on the tiniest violations by Clinton, given Bush a pass to violate any law he pleases?

If in 2008 we have President Hillary, do you expect the Republicans will let her do much warrantless wiretapping?

Answer 1

Bush WON'T follow the law because he believes he's above the law. He claims that it's his perogative to do whatever he wants, and Congress is letting him get away with it.

I don't know why the Republicans are letting him pass on everything, but I do know that if we had a Democratic president right now (either Gore or Kerry), and he were doing what Bush is doing, the right-wingers would be up in arms about it and trying to impeach him.

And yes, if Hillary (or any other Democrat) is elected president in 2008 (and we can only hope they are and work towards that), then the Republicans will be all over anything the president does, trying to "keep them in line."

I can't believe that Congress tried to impeach Clinton over a lie that affected no one but himself and his immediate family (and over a question that should never have been asked in the first place), but that they ignore the complete abuse of power that is George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove.

Answer 2

Maybe Bush would follow the law if the "leakers" would follow the laws dictating classified documents...

What possible reason would the President have to suspect that anything given to the FISA courts would remain classified or secret with respect to wiretaps, covert surveilance, and other means of electronic easedropping?

Think the Washington Post, New York Times, etc had anything to do with the Administration's actions blowing off the FISA courts? I hope you do...

Answer 3

First we have to hope that our votes are actually counted and not made up...like in '02 and '04, and looks likely for this year.

Keep in mind...how inappropriate would a wiretap be for him not to want the FISA court to know what he was doing? The FISA court that since it's inception, has only denied 5 warrants...and those 5 just needed to be reworded before being allowed. It would have to be awfully low-brow.

Bush wants to be able to spy on anyone that opposes him.

That is fascism!

Bush wants to be a Fascist dictator, and all he needs is for you fools to continue giving up your rights out of cowardice...fear of an imaginary enemy. A created enemy, but as they tell it, a totally imaginary one.

Terrorists are made, not born...and every person you kill makes a new one. Or two. Or 20.

Wake up! Stop being a yellow-bellied coward! Stop giving up all of your rights! Stop this evil regime! All you have to do is watch what's going on in the world and in our country, and look at the whole picture. You will see that what is going on is not democracy or freedom...it's institutionalized slavery with a pretty fascade. 0.1% of the people in this country control over 97% of the money...we are given a few minor luxuries and choices of models...like cars, tract houses, tv's, etc...and we are forced to live without decent education or chance of maiking it into the top 0.1%, without decent education, without decent affordable health care, without the possibility of real prosperity. People are starving around the world...and even in this country. Over 40% of homeless people work full time. All this and secret surveillance. It has already been shown that most of the wiretaps and suveillances done so far under Bush have been targeting liberal organizations and non-christian churches. Any one that disagrees with the Bushies is a potential target...so unless you are an exact Bush clone, you are a potential target. They have removed the protection of Habeus Corpus (that charges be brought in a reasonable amount of time) or a trial. Under current laws (all passed in the last 5 years), anyone that disagrees with the president can be arrested and detained indefinitely. Anyone that protests or voices an opinion contrary to that of the president.

Does that sound very American to you?

Answer 4

It is easy to condemn how our President uses a law to keep us safe at night so we don't have to sleep in bomb shelters, how he keeps terrorist at bay by taping phone calls, and to attack his character when he has the balls to stand for what he believes to be best for our country. I do not always agree with what he does and no I am not a pacifist, but I am rational about President Bush's intentions. Politics is not for those whose feeling get hurt easily or for those who feel that protecting our lives at any and all cost to our personal freedoms is unfair. I know that most politicians have their own personal agendas and could almost care less if the working man can feed his family. It is time for the people of this country to stop bickering, don't you think that other countries ( namely those who would like to blow us off the map) see how we behave and yes they do take full advantage of it by planning bombings and hijackings that they do manage to carryout very successfully. And as far as I know it is not President Bush who was caught smoking a cigar in his interns lower extremity but it was President Clinton so it appears that there is a issue of credibility here. And Hilary will not be President in 2008 there will be another Republican until the Democratic Party can quit squabbling like 5 year olds.

Answer 5

Actually, they will depending on what happens when the case regarding the NSA wiretaps is appealed.

In United States v. Truong Dinh Hung it was upheld that the President can do warrentless wiretaps on INTERNATIONAL calls for foreign intelligence. This case was decided after the passage of FISA.

You can read about it hear if you want:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/092502sup.html

Answer 6

Mr C had a warrant-less wiretap program.

specifically for terror investigation.(domestic as well as foreign)

i consider myself an independant (with a small lean to the right)

i have never bashed Mr C. it is still not decided whether Mr B has broken any laws on this matter.

i DO keep hearing laws have been broken, yet not a single mention of what laws specifically.

whatever the results in '08, i want the government to be resposible with OUR security!

Answer 7

Here is thing, the only protection of requiring a warrant is to establish probable case before the tapping.....
...whether it is done 72 hours later or never, it does not protect you....(so it somehow gives you a piece of paper that showed that he couldn't followed the law due to a time constraint?)
....it is either all or nothing, and in the case of the president, CIA, FBI it should be all....after all we have done wire tapping foreeever to catch drug dealers and the like....you get my point?

A piece of paper after the fact does not give anyone protection either domestically or abroad, so that is the nature of the security beast.:)

Answer 8

because he would not trust the regulation applies to him. He keeps saying in signing statements, opinion memos, legal briefs, and so on. examine the signing reality appropriate decrease than. Bush keeps repeating the word "unitary govt branch" it really is a connection with the legal doctrine that announces the govt branch has sole and unique authority to act outdoors the scope of any rules or court docket rulings. check out the references to sections 8106 and 8119, and section 1005. Bush is flat out rejecting the authority of Congress to make rules regulating the defense force (Article I section 8), and rejecting the perfect court docket's authority to take heed to habeas corpus circumstances, which the perfect court docket has many times asserted. Bush in basic terms would not imagine he's issue to the regulation.

Answer 9

It's not so much Bush as I think it is Cheney.

Cheney got his start during the Nixon Administration and believes in the idea of the "imperial presidency" I believe he even told one of the Sunday morning news shows that the Presidency ceded to much power to Congress during Watergate and it's time to get it back.

Answer 10

Because we are at war dummy. No president involved in war has followed the law. He has the power to declare martial law and suspend all of them he don' like