wire-tapping, torture, etc
2007-12-08 03:26:06 · 16 answers · asked by Lina 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I often used that argument when I run into people who believe the president should have those powers. They might trust Bush to wire-tap only the guilty, but they suddenly become fearful and unsure when I suggest Hillary having those same powers.
2007-12-08 03:30:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Makes sense. It would give her time without Bill around to plan the hit. It would also be good for a few laughs - a 21 times indicted President and another who's only claim to fame was riding Reagan's coattails then messing up so badly that he lost re-election running around spitting out sound bits for the US press.
2016-04-08 01:36:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
She should stop those atrocities immediately. Bush doesn't have the right. He's a criminal period.
International and U.S. law prohibits torture and other ill-treatment of any person in custody in all circumstances. The prohibition applies to the United States during times of peace, armed conflict, or a state of emergency. Any person, whether a U.S. national or a non-citizen, is protected. It is irrelevant whether the detainee is determined to be a prisoner-of-war, a protected person, or a so-called “security detainee” or “unlawful combatant.” And the prohibition is in effect within the territory of the United States or any place anywhere U.S. authorities have control over a person. In short, the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment is absolute.
2007-12-08 03:33:36 · answer #3 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. Bush has circumvented our Constitution by using Executive Orders and Signing Statements to garner unprecedented power for the Executive branch. That is something our Fore Fathers warned against and tried to stop from the beginning of our Republic. The Executive branch of our Government needs to be stripped down to it's original role. I don't know if it is possible to undo what Bush has done.
2007-12-08 03:32:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Well, since she'll feel entitled to all the power she can gather, I suspect GWB will look like a walk in the park compared to Clinton.
2007-12-08 03:28:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well Bill Clinton had the same powers and the line item Veto,, So yes.
2007-12-08 03:32:40 · answer #6 · answered by Locutus1of1 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, and she will. This executive power is protected under the War powers act. You do know she hasnt been elected yet right?
2007-12-08 03:28:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I hope we don't have a "President Clinton"! If that does happen you better be ready for some very bad times.
2007-12-08 03:58:40 · answer #8 · answered by John K 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Every President has Executive Powers. She will or anyone else who gets them, will probably use them.
2007-12-08 03:29:51 · answer #9 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes.
"She" and Bill already did that in Arkansas.
If you don't like being wiretapped, don't call known terrorists on the phone.
If you don't want to be hazed with waterboarding, don't try to kill Americans.
2007-12-08 03:29:14 · answer #10 · answered by dinamuk 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋