For all of you who think Bush broke the law?

Question

Have you ever taken the time to read the Constitutional ruling "Stenek vs. United States," which says that the president has the right to limit civil liberties in a time of war, including free speech? You should be thankful that Bush ISN'T taking away your right to protest our actions in Iraq, cause he COULD if he wanted to!

So, with the "he broke the law" pitch gone, what do you have to hide? Why can't Bush protect us by spying on phone calls and email that go overseas? Again, "Stenek vs. United States" ELIMINATES your "against the law" argument.

Sorry, its Schenk vs United States, not Stenek vs. United States. It was a law passed during World War 1.

And consider this: Abraham Lincoln SUSPENDED the writs of habeus corpas during the Civil War, long before Schenk vs. United States was put into law.

Those of you who said "we are not at war" are living in a communist fantasy world! You want to tell me how we are not at war? I'm not talking about just Iraq, I'm talking about the war on terrorism as a whole. DID YOU IDIOTS NOT SEE WHAT HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001?

Oh, and here's the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Answer 1

not only was that a court ruling but the Constitutional Congress set up the constitution allpwing for it the supreme court just upheld this. Oh yeah and guess what up we do not have a right to privacy so get over it all the patriot act is saying is that if we speak out against the government we can be considred a domestic terrorist which then gives the government without a warrant to seize all personal assets. People lack the acual knowledge that there is needed to grasp these concepts that is why they are always bitching about things like this oh and btw the court case is Schenck v. United States

Answer 2

Bush broke the law when he lied to Congress in his 2003 State of the Union Address, when he claimed that Saddam was attempting to buy yellow cake uranium from Nigeria. The facts coming out in the Scooter Libby trial have shown that the Administration knew this to be a fabrication. Lying to Congress is illegal. Therefore, Bush broke the law.

As for your court case, you have misspelled the name. It is Schenk vs United States, and refers to the activities of a Socialist during WWI, who disseminated information about protesting the draft in violation of the Espianage Act of 1917. I find it interesting that the SCOTUS limited the curtailment of free speech in its ruling:

"The First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging insubordination....."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

I do not think this gives Congress or the President carte blanch to spy on ordinary Americans--it is talking about curtailing speech that encourages people to break the law.

As for all who have said, "If you're not a terrorist, why worry?" my answer is--what if they make a mistake? They have done that for many people trying to fly--and those people on the "No Fly" list incorrectly have no way to get their record expunged. What if the military comes and takes you away from your family in the middle of the night--by mistake? If our Constitutional right to habeas corpus, counsel, etc, are curtailed, then you could be sitting behind bars for a long time, if not the rest of your life, with no recourse for you or your family. Besides, "disappearing" people like this sounds more like the antics of a third world dictatorship than of the actions of the USA.

Answer 3

I am only thankful that George W. Bush is leaving office in about two years. Bush is a Lame Duck. It is too late in the game for him to "limit the rights" of anyone. As a matter of fact, it appears that Congress is going to "limit his rights" in the very near future.
I am not thankful for anything he has or has not done.I never protest, but see nothing wrong with others doing the same. I am aware of the "right" of the president to limit civil liberties in "time of war" BUT this is not a time of "war". The media gave it that terminology. It is a conflict. The President speaks in terms of a "War on Terror." This is an illegal occupation. With illegal killing on BOTH sides. Sorry, but Your argument is NOT right on target (and neither is the 'lawyer's.)

And thank you so much Chucky and Lucky! Well put.

Answer 4

Does it count!!! he's president, voted in by technique of the individuals of u . s . a . to characterize u . s . a . and its moves. He does what he feels top as probably the most sensible guy in the global. all of us damage the regulation, next time you're going only 1km an hour over the speed reduce on your automobile your breaking the regulation... what's regulation, is it in position to guard others, if the answer to that's definite and Bush believes that he did what he did to guard others then NO he did not damage the regulation.

Answer 5

The only people that really need to worry are those that would be terrorists. Really my conversations would be so boring to the USA Government. My children call and we discuss different things from children to whatever. Yippee, really world worrying. People in the USA have a problem it is called Paranoia. Yes President Bush could clamp down on all of this but chooses not to. It would be in his right as President of the USA, but it would take some of the freedom this great country enjoys away.

Answer 6

I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the case (I'm not a lawyer). Can anyone provide a link? I did a search without any luck. Not a very good question when those wanting to respond can't do any research to give an informed response.

Answer 7

If you really believe what you have said, you are living in the wrong country and have no understanding of "war", "civil liberties", "free speech", "protest" and a huge misinterpretation of the case you quoted.

Try a little more research.

Answer 8

I have to remind you that many judges were prosecuted as well during the Nuremburg trials.

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — former Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Göring while in his jail cell during the Nuremberg Trials

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Answer 9

Ya know? EVEN though you are trying to help the cause, it wasn't all calls/e-mails that went overseas. It was ONLY calls/e-mails, that were sent by those, KNOWN to associate with terrorists/terrorist cells. And to all the rest of the world, I loved that fact.

If you were a KNOWN cavortist (if that is a word) of Terrorists you should be WATCHED

Answer 10

Here is the problem, we are not at "war". We are using a war of words, and we carried out an act of war invading Iraq, but this is not a war, and the war on terror is only a slogan, not a war. It's moot at this point, the damage is done.