He's already admitted his agents are breaking the law in the way they've implemented the "Patriot" Act. Yet he wants Congress to continue to allow him to operate just as he has been doing, without having to get warrents and submit to judicial oversight.
Quite aside from the fact that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional because id allows warrentless searches, Mueller has proved he had his cohorts can't be trusted to obey the law. But he wants Congress--and the American people--to let him continue business as usual.
So--given that he's responsible for breaking the law (and proving WHY the framers of the Constitution were right in requiring warrents), should Mueller face charges?
2007-03-27
06:27:46
·
2 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
Jacob W--a thoughtful answer. But step back from the rhetoric a minute and look at the facts: Democrats (and liberals generally) DON'T object to Patriot Act. No one (barring the occaisonal extremist) has suggested the government shouldn't have the power to gather any intelligence it needs in the war on terror. But--as this case proves--that power should not be unsupervised. That's the whole point of warrents. And the Bush administration has yet to come up with any arguement to justify not subjecting the powers of the Patriot Act to judicial oversight.
2007-03-27
06:51:12 ·
update #1