why do liberals want Bush's aids to testify under oath, it's a slippery slope, if Bush loses his power of executive priveledge the people might expect their ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES to be accountable for their actions, they're probably telling the truth, they're just not comfortable swearing to it in case their testimony should become "confusing"?
2007-08-09 12:53:42 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I can't believe you don't see anything wrong with this. Our country was founded on oppression. People who left their countries because they weren't allowed civil liberties or freedoms and you ask a question like this.
Americans expect to have freedom whether we need to or not or whether we have something to hide or not. It's called the Bill of Rights and it's part of our constitution.
2007-08-09 12:58:33 · answer #1 · answered by Jackie Oh! 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Its not about whether or not you have something to hide. The government has no right to "spy" on anyone. There are laws, which the framers of the constitution incorporated into the bill of rights, which are violated by the Patriot Act.
Think about the political activists, and abolitionists of the 1800's... they would NEVER have allowed for this to happen. I think that we, Americans that is, have become complacent and lazy. We allow the government to do whatever, and no one THINKS nor challenges them until its too late. This whole wiretapping, patriot act, crap comes from the 9/11 attacks... hell they STILL haven't captured anyone linked to the alleged attack, so why the hell would we want them policing our personal lives this way?
I have absolutely nothing to hide, but I do have something to protect, and that would be my freedom, and privacy. What the hell are we tapping American phone lines for? Not one American allegedly flew planes into buildings... Not one.
They certainly SHOULD have to swear under oath... lol they made Clinton swear under oath. hahaha. Ah the double standard, whats good for the democrat isn't good for the republican.
Its all insane if you ask me. I cannot rest on "probably telling the truth" why not swear? The question you asked about liberals and statement of them not having anything to hide, can be applied to conservatives who don't want to swear under oath...
2007-08-10 02:17:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lets say that someone like oh... Nixon had this power, what would he have used it for...
I might not have anything to hide but that doesn't mean they won't use it against me. Think about it this way, you trust Bush but what if Pelosi suddenly became president? She is third in line you know. Don't think of it as I trust the government now so much as how much do you trust the government of twenty years from now even though we have no idea who will be running it.
Besides... I don't really trust the current government...
As for confusing testimonies, it is confusing as to why someone would answer the same question yes, no, and I can't answer all in the same sitting but if you fall for the I was confused bit why didn't you fall for the oral sex isn't sex bit also...
2007-08-09 13:00:34 · answer #3 · answered by Memnoch 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Fact: Executive Order #12949 was signed by President William Jefferson Clinton on February 9, 1995. It authorized wire tapping and physical searches without warrants for up to 72 hours. Not a peep was heard from members of his party.
Fact: Public Law #107-108 was signed into law on December 28, 2001. Section 314 of that law allows wire taps without warrants for up to 72 hours. My senior Senator and the current Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid) made a big noise about warrantless wire taps until I reminded him, through his staff, that he and the other 99 Senators had voted for such a thing. Twice!
2007-08-09 13:17:42 · answer #4 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are you a taxpayer? How would you like to pay for mindless hours of recordings of my parrot screaming, the TV and music blasting and stupid teenage phone conversations, all because I showed up for a "No War in Iraq" rally in 2000, or for some other equally stupid reason? Isn't this supposed to be a democracy? Sure, I have nothing to hide. Let them smell my dirty underwear, if that's what they like to do. Still, as a taxpayer I really do mind paying for it, and as a US citizen I respect my own Constitution too much to let that be trampled on. Funny, I don't really hear the liberals crying nearly loudly enough.
2007-08-09 13:15:14 · answer #5 · answered by Zelda Hunter 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
it relatively is greater Obama substitute... substitute from what he instructed all those gullible idiots and smart techniques till now the election to fool them into balloting for him. yet now he sees that wiretapping may be a regularly occurring-value approach to undercover agent on those people who oppose him and his wacko schemes, so all quickly wiretapping is okay with the aid of him. Which demonstrates no longer purely Obama's hypocrisy however the hypocrisy of each and every of the liberals who wailed and cried approximately Bush wiretapping, yet now that THEIR boy is at the back of it, it relatively is all quickly all hunky-dory with them. little question they believe Obama to wiretap purely Republicans, conservatives and different political fighters of the Leftist Socialist Revolution. i does no longer placed it previous him, the two. And unions are parasites sucking the existence-blood from the financial equipment.
2016-11-11 21:45:45 · answer #6 · answered by blinebry 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you don't have anything to hide why does it matter is not a justifiable defense. "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."
Your other blather was, well, blather so I'm not going to answer that bit.
2007-08-09 13:01:25 · answer #7 · answered by sbcalif 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Its not about hiding something, its the insidiousness of it.
That is exactly what Germany did to its people. Step by step the people allowed it till one day it turned out everyone was guilty until proven otherwise.
Yes it could happen here. Wait till the next 911 and how much more is done to make our people less free. Then the next, and the next and so on and so forth till the day comes when the jack boots are marching in the streets and the people are living in fear.
Not from the terrorists, but from our own government.
And yet for some ungodly reason, the people will still proclaim we're free and the jack boots will say they are doing their mandated constitutional duty.
Peace
Jim
.
2007-08-09 12:57:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
Um, the Bill of Rights says we have a right to privacy, Period. Nothing about being guilty or not. Do you not understand the basic principles of the Constitution?
But if you feel this way, can I come rifle through all your personal papers, medical records, diary, and underwear drawer? Why not? If you don't have anything to hide, why does it matter?
2007-08-09 13:13:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because wiretapping is an invasion of privacy as well as the US Constitution.
It doesn't matter whether or not someone has something to "hide." People have a right to their own private thoughts and conversations...and wiretapping violates that.
2007-08-09 13:07:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋