To answer your question, no I don't. My thought process is this. The PATRIOT Act changed the law, or you could say modified it. Congress approved the PATRIOT Act not once, but twice. The President and his cabinet authored the PATRIOT Act, hence in a way they changed the law. You see what I mean right? I never said that the surveillance was illegal. Don't put words in my mouth :hihi: Even prior to the PATRIOT Act, FISA had situations where a warrant could be requested after the fact. All the PATRIOT Act did was broaden these conditions and tweak them a little. I'm telling you, this whole thing is being dragged out for one reason, to make the president look bad. It seems to me that just about everything done by the dems is in order to get Bush. Have you listened to their party chairman lately? I like to think that most true conservatives within the republican party have the best interest of our country in mind.
You really need to get a grip on yourself. Taxation does not constitute illegal search and siezure so long as it is authorized by our duly elected representatives. And not care about privacy? Your article only shows that Big Brother government can come from the right as easily as it can come from the left. As a conservative, I fear an unrestricted government. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I have do doubt that Bush acted with the best of intentions, but it would have been wiser had he went ahead and obtained a warrant, even if he had legal grounds for not doing so. Just because we can do something, does not me we always should.
The constitution never mentions privacy. Privacy is not a big concern of mine, but the constitution is. For instance, Freedom of Speech & Religion might be of particular interests to you. You would be hung in other societies for the things you say here.
What if acquiring that warrant would cost us an opportunity of gaining that intelligence? There are loopholes for a reason. An investigator or police officer doesn't always have to have a warrant to come in and search your home or person. There are circumstances that relief them from this obligation. It is the same with surveillance.
people like to say that say that the 4th amendment is about privacy. so what if it is. i could rewrite the constitution and make it better than it is now. i didnt say there are not part of the constitution that are not good. im only saying that it isnt some sacred thing. for instance if the 18th amendment had been passed, but not the 22nd, i wouldnt feel guilty about drinking, even though it explicitly violated the constitution. the constitution needs change sometimes. somethimes it is wrong. if people are saying that what bush is doing is unconstitutional, then i say i dont care what the constitution says. i know why bush is doing what he is doing and it is fine by me. you might argue that that he is doing is not unconstitutional also, but i dont bother doing that, because i really dont care if it unconstitutional or not. alls i am saying is that i think the argument "x is unconstitutional" is not an automatic argument winner.
Correct.........the Constitution says nothing about personal privacy. That's why many believe that abortion based on Roe's woman's Constitutional "right to privacy" is simply made up law......there is no Constitutional guarantee to privacy.
This is another big hub-bub for nothing actually. The Patriot Act gave him the authority but through executive order, these types of things were already done against the mob 30 years ago. The FBI got wiretaps then without a court order....ordered by the Attorney General Robert Kennedy and signed by his brother. What we ought to be concerned about is what politician leaked this to the NYTimes. Bush briefed numerous Congressmen over 10 times on this subject. One of them went to the Times with this now they are running around calling for investigations acting like they knew nothing. They were briefed and Bush has the names of who was in there. And the timing of the release from the Times comes into play also.........they release it right before the vote on the renewal of the Patriot Act. This gave five or 10 Congressmen the ammo the needed for stalling it in the Senate. If people can't see this whole thing was orchestrated......man.
Maybe not, I don't know because I'm no expert on the Constitution. But I believe that the Amendment preventing illegal search and seizure was made to protect privacy. Why? I thought we didn't care about press-leakages? Or is that only when it's suspected to be done by one of Bush's minions?
I do. Certainly that is one reason, politics are always around at this level. But there are other legitimate concerns that are being raised here involving constitutionality, as have been pointed out. They can't all be dismissed as "politics". The republican congress is investigating this serious matter. I have no doubt you are sincere. But consider that it works exactly the same for the democrats. They believe they are the party with the best interests of the country in mind. They are as appalled the the actions of Bush as you are by the rhetoric of Dean. It seems to them that when the roles were reversed, Republicans spent 8 years trying to overturn the results of two elections to get rid of Clinton. After failing to find him guilty of anything in the Whitewater investigation, the republican special investigator just switched to a prosecution of a BJ in the oval office which instigated an impeachment, in which Clinton was not convicted. They might say Democratic payback has been mild compared to the anti-administration tactics of the Republicans when out of office.
