Domestic spying

[The Mad Monk]

...and yet they have a sudden change of heart just when the author has a book coming out.

Very convenient, that.

[Odin]

Even the hard-core conservatives are getting pissed:

BOB BARR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order.

...

BARR: Well, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is the Constitution, and I took an oath to abide by it. My good friend, my former colleague, Dana Rohrabacher, did and the president did. And I don't really care very much whether or not it can be justified based on some hypothetical. The fact of the matter is that, if you have any government official who deliberately orders that federal law be violated despite the best of motives, that certainly ought to be of concern to us.


...

ROHRABACHER: And by the way, how do we know who wasn't deterred from blowing up other targets. The fact is --

BARR: Well, gee, I guess then the president should be able to ignore whatever provision in the Constitution as long as there's something after the fact that justifies it.

BARR: Bob, during wartime, you give some powers to the presidency you wouldn't give in peace time. BARR: Do we have a declaration of war, Dana?

ROHRABACHER: You don't have to do that.

BARR: We don't? That makes it even much easier for a president.

...

BARR: Here again, this is absolutely a bizarre conversation where you have a member of Congress saying that it's okay for the president of the United States to ignore U.S. law, to ignore the Constitution, simply because we are in an undeclared war.

The fact of the matter is the law prohibits -- specifically prohibits -- what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn't matter, I'm proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding, Wolf.

ROHRABACHER: Not only proud, we can be grateful to this president. You know, I'll have to tell you, if it was up to Mr. Schumer, Senator Schumer, they probably would have blown up the Brooklyn Bridge. The bottom line is this: in wartime we expect our leaders, yes, to exercise more authority.

Now, I have led the fight to making sure there were sunset provisions in the Patriot Act, for example. So after the war, we go back to recognizing the limits of government. But we want to put the full authority that we have and our technology to use immediately to try to thwart terrorists who are going to -- how about have a nuclear weapon in our cities?

BARR: And the Constitution be damned, Dana?

ROHRABACHER: Well, I'll tell you something, if a nuclear weapon goes off in Washington, DC, or New York or Los Angeles, it'll burn the Constitution as it does. So I'm very happy we have a president that's going to wiretap people's communication with people overseas to make sure that they're not plotting to blow up one of our cities.

BLITZER: We're out of time, but Bob Barr, I'll give you the last word.

BARR: Well, first of all, or last of all, this so-called plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was bogus because it had to do with a group of idiots who were planning to dismantle it with blow torches.

http://atrios.blogspot.com

OMG. I agree with Bob Barr. Hell just froze over.

[DinoDoc]

OMG. I agree with Bob Barr. Hell just froze over.

You don't know that much about him.

[Odin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

OMG. I agree with Bob Barr. Hell just froze over.

You don't know that much about him.

Yes, he is a traditional conservative. Your point? They've been sucking up to Bush because they are pro-business. Bush's criminal behavior is so heinous that it is finally getting the paleocons, who are obsessive about liberty, to wake up.

[Vince278]

BARR: Well, first of all, or last of all, this so-called plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was bogus because it had to do with a group of idiots who were planning to dismantle it with blow torches.

[Zkribbler]

BTW. before it is lost in the hubbub of argument:

No one is saying that the wiretaps & phone intercepts shouldn't have been done. Critics are only saying that the President's men should go to a judge and get a warrant. In this post-9/11 atmosphere, that is a very, very simple task.

Instead, the President wants to ignore the Separation of Powers doctrine and act like a dictator.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

Instead, the President wants to ignore the Separation of Powers doctrine and act like a dictator.

Bush just took the Constitution and wiped his ass with it.

Is it Fascism yet?

[Odin]

People should be marching in the streets over this.


BUSHCO STOLE OUR COUNTRY IN 2000 AND WE WANT IT BACK!

IMPEACH THIS TREASONOUS F*CKER

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Under the Constitution, certain liberties can be suspended during wartime. So I doubt this will be ruled illegal by any courts, especially with the courts we have.

We are definately NOT formally at war right now with anyone. The nature of the war on terrorism means that that such Presidential powers would potentially exist forever. Furthermore arguing that Congress lacks the ability to limit how the executive branch can moniter the communications of Americans effectively gives the President unlimited authority to spy on Americans without any proper court or legislative supervision. Half measures don't count. I don't see how the courts would have any choice but to label such behavoir illegal.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Critics are only saying that the President's men should go to a judge and get a warrant.

That shouldn't be too hard to do. There are thousands of judges, many of whom would be glad to rubber stamp anything the President would want to do (he appointments them at the federal level after all). I'm not sure what processes a judge needs to go through to approve such a request but what is the difference between a judge and a president abusing the system?

[Odin]

*BUMP*

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Odin
People should be marching in the streets over this.

And they don't.

[Berzerker]

We are definately NOT formally at war right now with anyone.

Sure we are, we are at war with remnants of the Iraqi and Afghan regimes - both authorised by congressional resolutions. Have we signed some treaty ending hostilities with these groups? No, so I'd say we are still at war with them.

The nature of the war on terrorism means that that such Presidential powers would potentially exist forever.

Or until Congress stops what they started...

Furthermore arguing that Congress lacks the ability to limit how the executive branch can moniter the communications of Americans effectively gives the President unlimited authority to spy on Americans without any proper court or legislative supervision. Half measures don't count. I don't see how the courts would have any choice but to label such behavoir illegal.

The courts aren't in charge of deciding which civil liberties may be suspended during wartime.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And they don't.

Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

DOWN WITH KING GEORGE!!!



Is this why Hillary, Lieberman, and McCain are sucking up to Bush? Is Bush collecting person information to BLACKMAIL them?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Odin
Is this why Hillary, Lieberman, and McCain are sucking up to Bush? Is Bush collecting person information to BLACKMAIL them?

No. It's because so many citizens are comfortable with it.