Bush hasn't lied and broken the law?

Question

Judge says Bush broke the law;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePCMS7LolQc&mode=related&search=

Straight from the mouth of the president;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMjwGXwiV_g&mode=related&search=

And just to top it all off;

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2005/Jun/27-499670.html

Answer 1

Some years ago, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It sets up a special court that can issue warrants authorizing surveillance of Americans. This court has routinely issued the warrants and even gives the government 72 hours in which it can get a warrant after the fact. In other words, if what Bush says about only surveilling people with known ties to terrorists is true, then he would have had no problem getting the warrants.

Gen. Michael Hayden, now deputy director of national intelligence and former director of the National Security Agency, was trotted out before the press to justify this and, frankly, made a fool of himself. When someone raised the issue of probable cause, the general petulantly denied that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution requires probable cause. Then he said that the standard is reasonable, and added that nobody was more familiar with the Fourth Amendment than the NSA.

Well, he's dead, flat wrong.

Here's the text of the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What the Bush administration is saying is, to hell with the Bill of Rights. We are changing the standard. No probable cause and no oaths or affirmations are needed. All that is needed is if we personally decide that search and seizure is reasonable. By that standard, no police department in the U.S. would need to bother with search warrants.

Sorry, but the Constitution cannot be amended by arrogant public officials who don't wish to bother with it. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if the American people allow it to be violated at will, then they will deserve the loss of liberty that will surely follow. We do not need to become a dictatorship just to catch terrorists. Nor does a declaration of war (which Bush, by the way, doesn't have) suspend the Constitution.

Answer 2

The 4th amendment violations of the NSA snooping are not the only issue. There's also the torture of prisoners under USC Title 18.

If the Democrats take the House (probable), then there will be gridlock in Washington. If the Democrats also take the Senate, I think the House will move for impeachment if the hearings on ANY significant count result in findings which amount to a "high crime" or "misdemeanor."

Politically, the question is whether the independent voters will show such disgust with "W" that they vote democratic in the 2006 off-year elections. The trend is moseying in that direction...

Answer 3

and your point is? bush says he didnt break the law because he has signed bills that cover his butt or hes going off the patriot act which is pretty much a cover all law. its there to allow them to do their jobs with out having to go through the normal channels. its all in the way the law or act is interpeted. one judge can interpet it that he didnt break any laws, another judge can say he he broke the law based on another law that states he can authorise something. thats why its called politics. and one reason why i will never be in office for anything. id break all the laws.

Answer 4

Oh please, I dont think Bush would know the truth if it bit him in the @$$!

Answer 5

people seem to be stuck on this, can we pls move forward?