Yes, he did break a law. He broke the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act enacted in 1978, passed by Congress to give the executive branch a mechanism for keeping watch on suspected terrorists and criminals. Since you can't be honest enough to admit even that, or are too ignorant or too uncaring to even know the law existed despite the current outrage, nothing else in your post deserves the slightest bit of attention.
Surveil? Is that a word? :hihi: Never before has the enemy been so firmly entrenched within our own society. In just about all other wars and conflicts there was a line. A geographic area that you could narrow down the fighting to. Not today. There is no front line. We all live on the line. They, our enemy, could be your co-workers, your friends, or even your own family members. These are drastic times. They call for some drastic measures. There is a fine line between protecting your citizens from harm and trampling on their rights. We are no where near that line.
Bottom line, I want to be protected from terrorist. If that means eavesdropping on people making calls to nations aiding terrorist (without a warrant), then so be it. IMO this has stopped terrorist attacks. rexfab
Right, because it's never the neo-cons screaming 'librul' and 'terrorist' if one dares disagree. This is evidenced by your persistence to view this as Rep vs Dem in this very thread. There are noted conservatives expressing disapproval and you still can't quit making it into a partisan issue. Yep. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=surveil I'm certain that very similar assertions were expressed during the push for the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), the Sedition Act of 1918, or the Red Scare. This isn't the first time we've believed our enemy to share our soil. Maybe, maybe not. But what about when we are? Things like the Patriot Act will have provided the way in. And you won't be able to do anything about it. Oppressive governments do not form overnight.
Communism was an economic and a political philosophy. Marx wrote that the individual is nothing. That led to people such as Lenin to set up a dictatorship that denied the dignity of the individual in favor of the power of the state. Communism had everything to do with people's rights, as history has clearly shown. To say that it has not is to completely ignore almost 100 years of history.
As you can see below, the PATRIOT Act has given us the authority to do these things. That is the reason it's renewal is being held up by the dems and a few moderate republicans. FISA, and it's different sections, are addressed and explained. I fail to see where the confusion is here. Here, you read the damn thing and come back and tell me how Bush broke any laws. http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html You can say that you disagree with the PATRIOT Act, that's your prerogative, but don't try to make something out of nothing. The Senate and the House has read the same information that is below, and passed it twice.
The Patroit Act allows domestic spying without a court order for a specific amount of time. It keeps the FBI from being forced to sit and wait until a court gets time to hear the evidence. Executive orders like Bush's were also done for the mob.
Well, it ain't very articulate, if you are actually trying to convince somebody. However, I sometimes feel like saying the same thing. Good grief, Salty! Do you imagine that the president has the right to make laws? This is what has upset the Congress, because they have the exclusive right to make laws in this country. Even the republicans in Congress are starting an investigation of this new scandal. The president may very well have broken the law here. I understand what you are saying. That this illegal surveilance was motivated by proper motives and only used against legitimate threats. If so, then he only needed to get warrants from a judge or ask Congress to amend the law. The suspicion is that the executive branch is attemping to operate beyond its proper authority and is usurping the role of the judicial and legislative branches, something that is clearly unconstitutional. The Constitution is something that is bigger and more important that one president's desires. We cannot tolerate an executive that holds himself above the law of the land. This is America, not the Soviet Union. My lesbian neighbor says that Condi is a carpetmuncher. :grin: Uhhh, the democrats are a political party, you know. The republicans are too and everything they do is also political. I'm not sure I understand your point here.
