New Bush scandal?

[longsticklax124]

What do u guys think about all the information coming out about Bush wire taping and all that stuff without getting permission from congress or supreme court? Do you think he was justified or that hje was going above the law?

[ghs/wylax]

i dunno its a hard call, i hate bush,but if he really really REALLY felt it was necessary than he wasnt going above the law.

[James Moran]

I disagree on some things and agree with him on others. This I'm not quite sure.

[marflax33]

If you think it was bad, just go away... All he was trying to do was protect us, if that spying came up with us capturing someone who had some sort disease or bomb than we would not be having this conversation. I think its perfectly ok if he has to take precautions to protect us... My 2 cents...

[ghs/wylax]

If you think it was bad, just go away... All he was trying to do was protect us, if that spying came up with us capturing someone who had some sort disease or bomb than we would not be having this conversation. I think its perfectly ok if he has to take precautions to protect us... My 2 cents...
thats kinda what i was trying to say.If he really was tryin to protect us,more power to him.

[raykessler]

If you think it was bad, just go away... All he was trying to do was protect us, if that spying came up with us capturing someone who had some sort disease or bomb than we would not be having this conversation. I think its perfectly ok if he has to take precautions to protect us... My 2 cents...


i dont care if someone is holding a gun to my head, i dont want to be "protected" at that cost... we have laws for a reason FOR EVERYONE TO OBEY THEM Bush clearly went around the highest law in the land namely the constitution of our united states. Bush is not a king, we made our political system so that things like this can not happen.

Also things like this would not have prevented september 11, it is flawed, the terrorists were living in the US for months, did not have contact with Al Queda, were seemingly normal people, and held normal jobs.... taking this into account we can surmise that this administration would never catch any large amounts of terrorists with just wire taping, which might make them go even further

what bush did is unforgivible, in my honest opinion he should be tried for passing a law against the constitution

edit: for those of you that dont know here is the fourth amendment to the constitution

Amendment IV: 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.

what he did is unconstitutional

[zak]

i dont care if someone is holding a gun to my head, i dont want to be "protected" at that cost... we have laws for a reason FOR EVERYONE TO OBEY THEM Bush clearly went around the highest law in the land namely the constitution of our united states. Bush is not a king, we made our political system so that things like this can not happen.
nal

Dems fightin' words.... but can you back them up?

[raykessler]

i did back it up, when i copied the fourth amendment to the constitution into my post everything i was said was confirmed correct, and bush was confirmed illegal

[ColtsLax]

he neither searched nor seized any persons, houses, papers or effects. thats not unconstitutional.

nothing in the constitution adresses wire taps, because they didn't have them. Trust me, the FBI does all kinds of stuff like this everyday, we just dont hear about it. my 2nd cousin used to be the 2nd in command of FBI counterterrorism, and hes told me some sweet stuff, its all unclassified now, but 4 or 5 years ago and beyond, we used to be a BA govt under reagan during the cold war.

[Formerlaxdemon]

Amendment IV: 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.

what he did is unconstitutional

Personally I would rather sacrifice freedoms for safety any day of the week. Also, the 4th Amendment has no mention whatsoever about wiretapping known terrorist suspects who may, or may not even be full fledged citizens of America. The 4th Amendment simply protects against searches and seizures. I am a strict interpreter of the Constitution and if it is not expressly mentioned, it was not meant.

Bush did not try and pass a law through this act, he simply approved of the action.

[zak]

i did back it up, when i copied the fourth amendment to the constitution into my post everything i was said was confirmed correct, and bush was confirmed illegal
Im talking about bush "clearly" did something wrong. Do you have proof? I havent heard anyhting abou tthis.

[raykessler]

wiretaps didn't exist when the constitution was written, ithe fourth ammendment also secures peoples privacy, which wiretaps are a violation of

the law that bush passed also allows search and seizures without a warrent and without passing it through a judge, clearly illegal

you would rather sacrifice freedom eh??? read 1984 because thats what happens when you start sacrificing freedoms... this is only the beginning if this is left uncontested

[raykessler]

Im talking about bush "clearly" did something wrong. Do you have proof? I havent heard anyhting abou tthis.


he authorized search and seizures without a warrent and without a judges approvel, which clearly violates the 4th ammendment, and wirtaps are clearly an invasion of privacy, which is also given to us by the 4th ammendment

[Eclipse]

i dont care if someone is holding a gun to my head, i dont want to be "protected" at that cost... we have laws for a reason FOR EVERYONE TO OBEY THEM Bush clearly went around the highest law in the land namely the constitution of our united states. Bush is not a king, we made our political system so that things like this can not happen.

Also things like this would not have prevented september 11, it is flawed, the terrorists were living in the US for months, did not have contact with Al Queda, were seemingly normal people, and held normal jobs.... taking this into account we can surmise that this administration would never catch any large amounts of terrorists with just wire taping, which might make them go even further

what bush did is unforgivible, in my honest opinion he should be tried for passing a law against the constitution

edit: for those of you that dont know here is the fourth amendment to the constitution

Amendment IV: 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.

what he did is unconstitutional


First of i would love to see how much you would want bush to be tried after a bomb blew up on U.S land because bush did not do a little wire tapping. Are you sheltered? Wire tapping is an every day occurence with our government. Sure we have laws but those laws are void when it comes to national security and the safety of our people. Any true leader knows this, look at history. Most leaders broke tradition or law to do what was best for there people.

[raykessler]

First of i would love to see how much you would want bush to be tried after a bomb blew up on U.S land because bush did not do a little wire tapping. Are you sheltered? Wire tapping is an every day occurence with our government. Sure we have laws but those laws are void when it comes to national security and the safety of our people. Any true leader knows this, look at history. Most leaders broke tradition or law to do what was best for there people.


those wiretapings are SUPPOSED to be gotten with a warrent, and passed through a judge, this law goes around this

laws void when it comes to security??? again i say WE ARE NOT A MONARCHY we are a representitive democrasy so things like this can not happen, so that the government is kept in check and can not go around its own rules

[Eclipse]

So when a quick decision must be made concerning national security bush should go ahead and take a national vote on it really really quickly before he does it? Please, this is rediculous.

[Diesel4958]

It is an invasion of privacy, the day I see our postman looking into MY house will be the day I go outside and ask him to move on. If my wire was tapped I would also be extremely mad, they can't take them to court because it wasn't confirmed thast they were actually tapping the lines, twisted isn't it.

[raykessler]

you dont take a national vote, you go through the court system or congress, without that the checks and balances system that was put in place to make sure no one branch had too much power is effectivly eliminated.... to all of you that are arguing with me go and buy 1984, good read and youl understand what a leader being able to do whatever he wants can do

[raykessler]

It is an invasion of privacy, the day I see our postman looking into MY house will be the day I go outside and ask him to move on. If my wire was tapped I would also be extremely mad, they can't take them to court because it wasn't confirmed thast they were actually tapping the lines, twisted isn't it.


THANK U finally someone on my side, i was beginning to think i was all alone

[longsticklax124]

those who give up freedom for protection deserve neather

[raykessler]

ben franklin.. good man

[zak]

he authorized search and seizures without a warrent and without a judges approvel, which clearly violates the 4th ammendment, and wirtaps are clearly an invasion of privacy, which is also given to us by the 4th ammendment
Wowww...I see EXACTLY what you are saying.

Nope.

How about a link buddy? Sorry if I dont exactly trust you as an objective and unbiased source of criticism on our President.

[longsticklax124]

o its also in a song by blackstar called what is beef

[ColtsLax]

wiretaps didn't exist when the constitution was written, ithe fourth ammendment also secures peoples privacy, which wiretaps are a violation of

the law that bush passed also allows search and seizures without a warrent and without passing it through a judge, clearly illegal

you would rather sacrifice freedom eh??? read 1984 because thats what happens when you start sacrificing freedoms... this is only the beginning if this is left uncontested
were not talking about regular people here, we are talking about KNOWN terrorist who may not vene be citizens, therefore they are not protected by the constitution. Plus the 4th protects against search and seizures, did they search his house or take anyhting?

[ohlax51]

Hitler said he was "protecting" germans(from the jews supposedly). By the way i am not comparing bush to hitler im just using an example. Im all for being protected but at the expense of freedom. I wonder how those people would feel if they where being investigated with out a warrant and many of these people werent "known terrorists" they where american citizens with ties to anti war groups or liberal groups.

[zak]

Hitler said he was "protecting" germans.
Are you going to flesh out your comparison a little further, or are you going to stop digging you hole now?

[Eclipse]

A mailman looking in my mailbox is stupid. The president tapping a terrorist is just. also i think you failed to see my point. Imagine the president has received confirm information that a terrorist is going to strike...in order to take down this criminal he may have to "bend" some laws. If the terrorist is not killed immediatly there could be deadly consuquences for many innocent americans. Is this the part he runs it through congress? We all know of checks and balances and seperation of powers...but i also beleive its safe to say these laws were created in a world much different then today. The framers of the constition could not have seen what was going to happen against the U.S. Sorry

[ohlax51]

Are you going to flesh out your comparison a little further, or are you going to stop digging you hole now?
Read edit.

[raykessler]

the fourth ammendment also guerntees peopleto be "secure in their persons" which translates to privacy, which is obviously being invaded, and also this law could allow them to spy on ANYONE

it also permits racial profiling, bad

it can also ruin peoples lives, lets say the spy on someone, they dont find hes a terrorist, but find something else hes doing wrong, something that would never have come out will have

i read in the post of a suspected terrorist who worked at a university, he was muslim, the evidence against him was scanty at best, he lost his job because of the trial, even though he was proven innocent

[raykessler]

A mailman looking in my mailbox is stupid. The president tapping a terrorist is just. also i think you failed to see my point. Imagine the president has received confirm information that a terrorist is going to strike...in order to take down this criminal he may have to "bend" some laws. If the terrorist is not killed immediatly there could be deadly consuquences for many innocent americans. Is this the part he runs it through congress? We all know of checks and balances and seperation of powers...but i also beleive its safe to say these laws were created in a world much different then today. The framers of the constition could not have seen what was going to happen against the U.S. Sorry


sort of like he had confirmed information about weapons of mass destruction in iraqu.... sorry but i dont trust his information anymore

[Eclipse]

That information was never confirmed. He had horrible intelligence and they THOUGHT they knew but there was never proof. This is also beyond point...it was mainly an example/rhetorical question.

[asian_invasion]

those who give up freedom for protection deserve neather

that quote should end all argument here period. actually this quote should:

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." -- Ben Franklin

but i think longsticklax124 had the right idea.

it's nice that bush said that he was trying to protect us but come on, that's unconstitutional. and the point here isn't the good intent, it's the potential for abuse on the president's part. never mind that i hate bush. what he has done so far during his administration was stupid, not illegal, but this just crosses the line.

[raykessler]

That information was never confirmed. He had horrible intelligence and they THOUGHT they knew but there was never proof. This is also beyond point...it was mainly an example/rhetorical question.


thank you for proving my point, this law is allowing the government to spy on people who they THINK they have info on, if they had confirmed info they could go through the courts like they are supposed to.... why would they need the law

[Eclipse]

Completely different example...in no way did i prove your point. All i am saying here is sure Ben franklin was sweet...but like i said, were there people and terrorists flying planes into buildings when he lived. Im not saying i would sacrafice all my freedom for protection...but bending the rules in certain cases is basically the American way. Bush isnt the first president to go behind our backs with this kind of stuff, so stop acting like he is.

[longsticklax124]

no there weren't terrorists or what not but if we woudl have just listened to george washington and his neutrality proclimation then we wouldent have to worry about this.

[raykessler]

find me another president who blatently defied the constitution with out repercussions....

wow way to avoid my point, if they had confirmed eveidence of people they could go through proper channels and get it done just as well, the only reason they made the law was so they could spy one ANYONE they want, so they dont need any intellegance

edit: and also i dont care what other presidents did in the past, all im concerned with is what out president is doing now

[ohlax51]

were there muslims and terrorists flying planes into buildings when he lived.
I find that offensive as a muslim terrorists are not all muslims ex: timothy mcvey IRA

[Eclipse]

The neutrality proclamation was great but it refered to "being nice" to spain france and britain. Im not sure how this would make a difference in todays world.

[asian_invasion]

ok, here's a rhetorical question: what if bush used his new powers to arrest democrats, gays, and his political opponents? the potential for abuse is not necessarily greater than the potential for usefulness, but eventually it will be. if we let him get away with this now, what guarantee do we have that in the future some other president won't abuse that power?

[JoshM]

It's ridiculous. Bush isn't the first president to do this, but this combined with all of the other...legacies of his administration make it even worse.


edit: and just because bush isn't the first president, does not make this right. This is in no way right or legal.

Check my sig ;)

[ohlax51]

good edit eclipse

[hitmenrule]

Everybody complains about the new securtiy measures since 9/11, and how they invade privacy, but if these measures were not put in place and there was another major terrorist attack then everyone would complain that nothing was done to prevent it. You can't have it both ways. As long as these measures are protecting society, I say more power to Bush and his wire tapping ways.

[Eclipse]

Gotta please the people :thumbsup:

On a more serious note. I think everyone is blowing this out of proportion!

[raykessler]

Everybody complains about the new securtiy measures since 9/11, and how they invade privacy, but if these measures were not put in place and there was another major terrorist attack then everyone would complain that nothing was done to prevent it. You can't have it both ways. As long as these measures are protecting society, I say more power to Bush and his wire tapping ways.


the CIA had been warning people for years about terrorist attacks, but no one was listening, we dont need more security

[Eclipse]

Its not our job to listen...its the CIA job to do something about it.

[raykessler]

Its not our job to listen...its the CIA job to do something about it.


no its bush's job to listen and do something about it

[GarysGod]

well i didnt watch the whole speech cause i had more improtant things to do like wash the walls or clean my keyboard...but from what I did catch It sounded like he sucessfully justified his actions, and almost convinced me, but its to bad that he will never fully remove the soldiers from iraq, that never should of been there

[whslax1990]

They are almost a democratized country now. Sounds like a good soldiers (and presidental) job too me. Also wire tapping was an issue of national security. Bush didnt need permision to save fellow citizens lives.

Also, Its obvious that this has happend in previous presidental terms. I think its great that W stepped up and had the balls to let the public know what he was doing. And if your so worried about your phone being tapped then dial 770-836-1965 If you hear a static sound after the annoying chime thing (not the busy signal, If you hear one then try again) then you better shut up about your terroristic crap.

[GarysGod]

well thats true, but no matter what anybody does the bombings wont stop, unless bush gives in to their demands and that wont happen,

[whslax1990]

GIVE IN!?!? whats that called? How about a giant wus of a country. Trust me, if you wouldave listend to the whole speech you would know the negative effects of giving in.

[GarysGod]

GIVE IN!?!? whats that called? How about a giant wus of a country. Trust me, if you wouldave listend to the whole speech you would know the negative effects of giving in.

your saying that the inocent lifes of soilders are worth the crown of a "not wuss" country? thats more then wrong, thats just not worth taking into consideration

[whslax1990]

War is war. People die. I have 2 relatives in my direct family that have been shipped off. You know why they went? The lives of innocent people were being sent into a wood chipper by the old Iraqui government. Personally, Its way worth the consequences. I might not know much about this strange world but saving a country is pretty damn curtious.

[Eclipse]

Lets not hijack this into an iraq thread boys

[ColtsLax]

I dont know where you guys get off thinking that we can be safe, yet have unlimted freedoms. more saftey=less freedom, but we are still a free'er country than any other in the world.

when it comes to national security, ANY president has a little more leeway in my book,plus, they knew this guy was bad, they THOUGHT Iraq had WMD's big differnace. And Sadam was still a bad guy, he needed to be taken out.

[Formerlaxdemon]

Its not our job to listen...its the CIA job to do something about it.


This is more within the NSA's realm of influence not the CIA. The NSA are also the agency that Bush authorized to proceed with the wiretapping of foreign communication from terrorist suspects. I think people keep forgetting that the wiretaps were used on international calls, not domestic calls.

[SDPirate]

his quote in my local paper was:

"do i have the power to do that?" "absolutely"


i had never hated bush until reading those words

[FPDefense]

My teacher was talking about this and said that the newspaper that released it knew about it for a year. And Congress was informed whenever The President had to renew the order. Also the minority leader was informed whenever he signed it. They are just bringing out that they are doing this because Congress is debating the Patriot act again,

Oh it is constitutional because of a sepreme court ruling during WWII under rosevelt(sp?). That under times of war the president has that power.

[JoshM]

Everybody complains about the new securtiy measures since 9/11, and how they invade privacy, but if these measures were not put in place and there was another major terrorist attack then everyone would complain that nothing was done to prevent it. You can't have it both ways. As long as these measures are protecting society, I say more power to Bush and his wire tapping ways.
This is a double edged sword. If there is no terrorist attack, Bush says that it worked. If there is one, he claims that it wasn't enough.

[BTlaxripper]

your saying that the inocent lifes of soilders are worth the crown of a "not wuss" country? thats more then wrong, thats just not worth taking into consideration

Okay both of you are arguing without facts.

The fact is, pulling out before the new government is in place and fully independent from US help would leave it vulnerable to falling into chaos.

We've been keeping people under control, and pulling out now would lead to riots, insurgencies, more terrorism, anarchy.

[BTlaxripper]

This is a double edged sword. If there is no terrorist attack, Bush says that it worked. If there is one, he claims that it wasn't enough.

There will be another terrorist attack on US soil eventually. No matter what we do it will happen.

It could be tomorrow, it could be in 1000 years.

Not to scare people but that's the truth.

[zerdoink]

all u democraps out there, make up yer mind what u want. you will blame bush for a terrorist attack and u will say hes wrong for wire tapping. what would u rather have? u can only bblame people for so many things and u guys (and girls) go over the limit. all i have to say is hail to the chief:worship:

[JoshM]

all u democraps out there, make up yer mind what u want. you will blame bush for a terrorist attack and u will say hes wrong for wire tapping. what would u rather have? u can only bblame people for so many things and u guys (and girls) go over the limit. all i have to say is hail to the chief:worship:
Is it so difficult to type out the word 'you'? Honestly...


Read my previous post.

[OutBurst]

i did back it up, when i copied the fourth amendment to the constitution into my post everything i was said was confirmed correct, and bush was confirmed illegal

Bush was confirmed illegal? Woah, I wanna do that!

Anyways, your thinking is flawed. We first need to figure out exactly what he did, when he did it, why he did it, why he says that his actions are very constitutional, and how we could prosecute him before we can be rid him of innocence.

[zak]

Bush was confirmed illegal? Woah, I wanna do that!

Anyways, your thinking is flawed. We first need to figure out exactly what he did, when he did it, why he did it, why he says that his actions are very constitutional, and how we could prosecute him before we can be rid him of innocence.
Exactly... everyone in this thread is pointing fingers, no one has proved anything. Lets see some links people.

[ohlax51]

remember how the government works? there are checks and balances. the exuctive branch cannot bypass all other branches to do what they feel is "necessary" if they can wiretap people without going through the proper channels what else can they do? detain them without evidence maybe? o wait they have already done that. The supreme court exists for a reason and that is to decide if crap like this is legal, plain and simple bush should have consulted them before taking action.

[zak]

remember how the government works? there are checks and balances. the exuctive branch cannot bypass all other branches, this would destroy the very purpose of our democracy.
Do you know how the government works? Bush can bypass other branches. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the accusations made against him. He didnt write a law, he broke one.

[longsticklax124]

so im confused about some stuff in "war" time cant the president like do something that he feels is "neccesary" withought consulting anyone? or am i hilusinating?

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

for those whp havent seen the story yet... here it is... nixon was almost impeached before he resigned, maybe we can do the same to bush...

http://www.alternet.org/story/29826/

[xmangs3]

Bush did not try and pass a law through this act, he simply approved of the action.
he approved it.....30 times.

[longsticklax124]

hopefully...

[asian_invasion]

i want that man out of office. asap.

[greenturtle]

First of i would love to see how much you would want bush to be tried after a bomb blew up on U.S land because bush did not do a little wire tapping. Are you sheltered? Wire tapping is an every day occurence with our government. Sure we have laws but those laws are void when it comes to national security and the safety of our people. Any true leader knows this, look at history. Most leaders broke tradition or law to do what was best for there people.
Ignorance is bliss.

[Eclipse]

Deal with it

[raykessler]

Do you know how the government works? Bush can bypass other branches. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the accusations made against him. He didnt write a law, he broke one.


i dont know what your talking about, he can use his veto against congress, but a simple 3/4 majority vote overturns that

as for the supreme court what they say goes, essintially the exectutive branch is the weakest of the three, being able to be overturned by the other two.. gues why that is TO PREVENT THINGS LIKE THIS

[JoshM]

i dont know what your talking about, he can use his veto against congress, but a simple 3/4 majority vote overturns that

as for the supreme court what they say goes, essintially the exectutive branch is the weakest of the three, being able to be overturned by the other two.. gues why that is TO PREVENT THINGS LIKE THIS
A simple 3/4 majority is not so simple in such an evenly split, by-partisan congress.

[raykessler]

i know its not easy to get, i was just pointing out that in effect the persident is SUPPOSED to be the least powerful of the 3 branches

[ColtsLax]

i still dont see what he leaglly did wrong. According to CNN, every 45 day, congress reups the Intelligance plan, so they know whats going on. wouldnt they have known this?

And are things different because this is a time of war?

[raykessler]

they shouldnt be different in the time of war, and im pretty sure in our system they are not, yes congress knows whats goin on but as josh points out congress is split and most likely does not have the power to get around him

[Frndlefire]

And are things different because this is a time of war?
In a time of war a president can do anything he wants if he believes it is in the interests of national security, and no, I'm not making that up. Bush could sieze the Ford motor company and burn it to the ground without compensation as long as he felt it neccesary. The only way to stop a president from doing so is by impeachment or at the voting booth.

I will have more to say on this later.

[ColtsLax]

they shouldnt be different in the time of war, and im pretty sure in our system they are not, yes congress knows whats goin on but as josh points out congress is split and most likely does not have the power to get around him
why not, when the country is at war, somethings may need to get done, and the regular peacetime system would be to slow.

and why do you feel it nesecary to "get around him" The PEOPLE chose that congress, so they must feel that it knows what its doing.

Once again, i would like to see some legal argument against this, and not a vauge referance to the 4th ammendmant, a physical literal law that prohibits wiretaps

[raykessler]

there are no laws that prohibit wiretapping, it is a legal governmental practice IT IS WIRETAPPING WITHOUT A WARRENT that is the illegal part, you are SUPPOSED to have a warrent to do that

wev been in iraqu for over twice as long as buch said we were going to be.... seems the wartime system isnt that much faster then the peacetime one

i dont see how your congress argument makes sense, congress is elected by state, so that what one state might want done might be the opposite of another one... thus a split in the congress and thus an inability to stop this horrible law

[ColtsLax]

He does not need a warrant to use wiretaps in this case. Since he is tapping known Al-Queda members, it falls under the jurisdiction of the FISA, every 45 day, the members of the congerssional NSA comitee review and renew the federal wiretap program. its been that way since the begining of the Patriot Act. Since it deals with ONLY known terrorist contacts, its a matter of National Security and only deals with international calls, and therefore, he does not need a warrant.

The fact the we have been in iraq longer than he says we were supposed to be(Hoe Long?) has nothing to do with this conversation.

People elect congressmen because they feel that said congressman will represent the populous best on the federal level. and every 45 day, congress gets the opportunity to kill the wiretap program, so if the people didnt wnat wiretaps, all you have to do is write a letter to your congressman.

Oh and by the way, Your president Clinton not only got a wiretap without a warrant, but also searched a guys home without a warrant.

[Frndlefire]

Colt, what does Clinton have to do with this conversation? I thought we were discussing whether or not the heat on bush for this was justified...?

[GBaschski]

his quote in my local paper was:

"do i have the power to do that?" "absolutely"


i had never hated bush until reading those words

Oh yeah, hate Bush because he has power to use certain measures to protect the country.
I salute your patriotism.

[GBaschski]

You guys are so smart. Yes, lets IMPEACH the President of the United States because he is doing things in the interest our safety.

Come on guys, its not like George Bush is sitting in a stake out in your backyard listening to your phone conversations. They're targeting threats.

I would love for someone to propose an Impeachment. Go ahead. Let the riots begin.

[Eclipse]

You guys are so smart. Yes, lets IMPEACH the President of the United States because he is doing things in the interest our safety.

Come on guys, its not like George Bush is sitting in a stake out in your backyard listening to your phone conversations. They're targeting threats.

I would love for someone to propose an Impeachment. Go ahead. Let the riots begin.

THANK YOU!!! this is exactly what im saying. This man is trying to protect you why do you guys have such a hard time realizing this?

[GarysGod]

Okay both of you are arguing without facts.

The fact is, pulling out before the new government is in place and fully independent from US help would leave it vulnerable to falling into chaos.

We've been keeping people under control, and pulling out now would lead to riots, insurgencies, more terrorism, anarchy.

yea its obvious that if we pulled out now that it would lead to horrible things, but the question is if we should of ever been there in the first place

[Eclipse]

Someone had to take sadamm down. Contrary to what you beleive we are the world superpower...we get involved in stuff like this. The fact is sure we poke our heads in alot of things...but if we didnt....it would end up alot worse.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

Someone had to take sadamm down. Contrary to what you beleive we are the world superpower...we get involved in stuff like this. The fact is sure we poke our heads in alot of things...but if we didnt....it would end up alot worse.
ok, tell me what threat saddam posed to us... adn tell me how he was so much worse than some of the other world leaders... and should we really have gotten involved in iraq, when we were already fighting another war (one which seems to have put on the backburner, by the way, although it is the only justified war at the moment).

[longsticklax124]

this thread isnt about iraq please dont tur it into another iraq thread.

[ColtsLax]

Colt, what does Clinton have to do with this conversation? I thought we were discussing whether or not the heat on bush for this was justified...?
where was all this controversy then, i just find it interesting that when bush does it, everyone gets up in arms, but when clinton does it, its OK.

[smooth87]

...And if your so worried about your phone being tapped then dial 770-836-1965 If you hear a static sound after the annoying chime thing (not the busy signal, If you hear one then try again) then you better shut up about your terroristic crap.

Why call that number? What's it do? I called it and got some annoying chime.

[Frndlefire]

where was all this controversy then, i just find it interesting that when bush does it, everyone gets up in arms, but when clinton does it, its OK.
I agree...where was the public outcry? If Clinton was doing something illegal he should have taken heat for it, but assuming what your saying is true...there wasn't any. Now with our seriously divided nation do you really believe that suddenly people are saying "hey..wait a sec...that's not ok!" where before they just let it slide? I mean, sure, the left would let it slide..but i dont see why the right would have if they could make a strong case against him.

Perhaps people are just tired of new scandals and more stepping on toes and seeming lack of transparency. Maybe they dont want a warrior nation. Maybe they are tired of our incessant fear mongering within the media and the administration.

If we werent allowed to have these wire taps is it possible that an avoidable attack could take place? Sure, of course. But do I really believe that they are neccesary and without them our country will be overrun by terrorists and car bombs? Will I worry about walking down the street or standing amongst a large group of people? No...not at all. I will take greater freedom over an illusion of security any day.

[ColtsLax]

Lie i sadi, you can be free and safe at the same time. its a sliding scale, with freedom on one end and saftey og the other. More freedom=less saftey, and vice versa. Its all about finding a happy medium.

Im gona wait till we get some more info from congress on this before i pass any more judgement.

[Eclipse]

With respect to the guy who started this thread i wont argue my point about iraq georgiamiddie

[Frndlefire]

Lie i sadi, you can be free and safe at the same time. its a sliding scale, with freedom on one end and saftey og the other. More freedom=less saftey, and vice versa. Its all about finding a happy medium.

Im gona wait till we get some more info from congress on this before i pass any more judgement.
Not sure how I feel about the sliding scale idea. I mean, there are very peacefull, free European countries who don't have this level of lost freedom. I think that if you dont give others a reason to hate you (but they hate us anyway because we are better than them!!!) than you won't have as much to worry about.

more later...must go help frost christmas cookies...

[JoshM]

You guys are so smart. Yes, lets IMPEACH the President of the United States because he is doing things in the interest our safety.

Come on guys, its not like George Bush is sitting in a stake out in your backyard listening to your phone conversations. They're targeting threats.

I would love for someone to propose an Impeachment. Go ahead. Let the riots begin.
So what if he suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus(which, some may argue, he has)? Would you still have no problem since it's in the interest of our safety?

And what specifies a threat? Do you really know?

[ohlax51]

Deal with it

That goes against every thing this country stands for the beauty of this country is that you can speak out about the government instead of "dealing with it".

[whslax1990]

Why call that number? What's it do? I called it and got some annoying chime.

If theres a scruncy static sound after the chime then your tapped. Not necisarrily by government though.

I heard this on the radio today from a very reliable source "100% of all tapped phones approved by bush either sent or recieved calls from private terrorist phones." This emphasizes my point that the average citizen will NOT Have their privacy invaded, But if one talks to a terrorist then the government has every right in the world to listen in.

Also I am outraged that the title of this forum is called the "New bush Scandal" Like I said in a previous post, Clinton did it, even Abraham lincon intercepted a telegraph message. This is not new stuff guys, get over the fact that terrorists in our country are being stripped of they're civil liberties.

[scruffy221]

My teacher was talking about this and said that the newspaper that released it knew about it for a year. And Congress was informed whenever The President had to renew the order. Also the minority leader was informed whenever he signed it. They are just bringing out that they are doing this because Congress is debating the Patriot act again,

Oh it is constitutional because of a sepreme court ruling during WWII under rosevelt(sp?). That under times of war the president has that power.


to expand on this the libs are arguing this because it's politically acceptable to bash the president at this point in our country.

the WHOLE CONGRESS was breifed on the status and progress of the wire taps regularly, once again they just decide to bring this up now. which is so bogus, and shows that they probably didn't care a while ago but now they're pulling out all their notes and trying to shoot down the president again.

happy hunting left wingers... NOT!

[ohlax51]

Oh yeah, hate Bush because he has power to use certain measures to protect the country.
I salute your patriotism.
You know since patriotism is agreeing with everything the president does. Patriotism is loving your country and not whoever is in power. A true patriot has the courage to tell the government that they are wrong.

[Eclipse]

I think he was saying hate a president because he is trying to protect you. thats why are not a patriot, not just because you hate Bush. And i think he is right. The smartest teacher i have ever had was my sociology teacher, he was a very old man, and he was very very left wing. He did not like Bush one bit, of course i did, and i remember him saying during class once "You know, I dont like bush, or stand for many of the things he does. But I will support him, because i am an American, and I love my Country." That my friend is a true Patriot. I hated John Kerry, and i hated almost every view the man had. Had he been elected sure i would have been upset but guess what? I would have supported whatever he chose to do! Why? Because he would have been the president! The president the AMERICAN people chose! The man was elected for a reason.
So big deal Bush did some wiretapping. It has already been decided that since this is a time of war, the president can do whatever he choses to do, as long as it is just. On top of all that the man did it to protect you. To protect your family, your job, your house, and our love for lacrosse. This is not taking freedom people, he is doing his job. Now grow up.

[JoshM]

I think he was saying hate a president because he is trying to protect you. thats why are not a patriot, not just because you hate Bush. And i think he is right. The smartest teacher i have ever had was my sociology teacher, he was a very old man, and he was very very left wing. He did not like Bush one bit, of course i did, and i remember him saying during class once "You know, I dont like bush, or stand for many of the things he does. But I will support him, because i am an American, and I love my Country." That my friend is a true Patriot. I hated John Kerry, and i hated almost every view the man had. Had he been elected sure i would have been upset but guess what? I would have supported whatever he chose to do! Why? Because he would have been the president! The president the AMERICAN people chose! The man was elected for a reason.
So big deal Bush did some wiretapping. It has already been decided that since this is a time of war, the president can do whatever he choses to do, as long as it is just. On top of all that the man did it to protect you. To protect your family, your job, your house, and our love for lacrosse. This is not taking freedom people, he is doing his job. Now grow up.
Based on what you said, you are implying that patriotism is synonymous with supporting the president. Not only is this incredibly ignorant, it's incredibly wrong. I don't like Bush, I think he's a moron. Am I entitled to this opinion? Yes, I am. Does the mean I'm not patriotic? Nope.

In case this is news to you, only about 50% of Americans voted for Bush.

[Eclipse]

I know how many people voted for bush but was he still elected. Patriotism is supporting the United States and its officials no matter what. Having complete faith in your country and willing to die for it. You probably dont fall under any of those categories.

[JoshM]

I know how many people voted for bush but was he still elected. Patriotism is supporting the United States and its officials no matter what. Having complete faith in your country and willing to die for it. You probably dont fall under any of those categories.
Uhh...no. You have a really messed up definition of patriotism. Right now I have very little faith in our country, under the current administration. But that doesn't mean I'm not patriotic. I can't believe I just read something that ignorant.

[Eclipse]

Did you ever think that maybe putting down everything everyone else says that you dont agree with just might be (GASP) Ignorant?

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

I know how many people voted for bush but was he still elected. Patriotism is supporting the United States and its officials no matter what. Having complete faith in your country and willing to die for it. You probably dont fall under any of those categories.
i remember a quote from a former president who is revered as one of the best in american history by some...
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president" -Theodore Roosevelt.

One of the highest forms of patriotism in fact is to question your nation's leaders and hold them accountable for their decisions and actions.

[JoshM]

Did you ever think that maybe putting down everything everyone else says that you dont agree with just might be (GASP) Ignorant?
Uhh...but what you said is ignorant. To quote webster.com:
resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence
I think that qualifies in this instance. You clearly do not know what patriotism is.



Well put, GeorgiaMiddie.

[Formerlaxdemon]

I noticed that someone on this thread made comment that Bush is becoming more like Orwell's concept of patriotism, well in Orwell's Notes on Nationalism, he observed that patriotism means "devotion to a particular place and particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally" (Orwell, p188). Well, according to this definition, and the accusations of others, Bush is not doing so badly then. What some of you might have is a very skewed interpretation of Orwell's definition of a nationalist.

Alternatively, the very question of American patriotism is not something we should enter into lightly. Consider Wilfred M. McClay's opinion that "a considerable part of the genius of American patriotism resides in the fact that being a proud and loyal American does not require one to yield up all of one's identity to the nation. On the contrary, American patriotism has generally affirmed and drawn upon the vibrancy and integrity of other, smallerscale, and relatively independent loyalties" (McClay, p44). The nation itself is strengthened by the smaller acts of personal patriotism.

The point that Eclipse was trying to make, and correct me if I am mistaken, is that in a time of war or extreme circumstances, we as voting and political Americans should turn our hearts from those smaller acts of personal patriotism in conflict to self-sacrificing acts dedicated to the well-being of the nation under the guidance of its current leader. There were many that did not agree with other war-time presidents (Truman, Roosevelt), but saw that their needs paled in comparison to the needs of the nation. The sad thing is that too many Americans have no sense of self-sacrifice and can think only negatively and politically regardless of the acts of humanity that play themselves out before us on the television or in newspaper. Everyone in my family has fought in a war. My father, for example, is a Vietnam veteran who absolutely despised the conflict, its leaders, but went all the same as his duty. He does not agree with the current President and voted for Kerry in the election. Although he remains critical of Bush (both father and son), he wants nothing more than a secure nation.

Those of you who argue what a breech of freedoms Bush's use of wiretappings was probably do not even know what it is like to not have those freedoms to begin with. We take much for granted in our society, but the beauty of it is that you have the option to do so. Patriotism and loyalty are not part of some zero sum game, and therefore are a part of our developing system and identity as Americans. Our nation has grown into a position of preponderance that has never occured in history and we are going to be judged more than any other nation on Earth for our mistakes and our successes.

I challenge you all to consider this: Patriotism is not an unconditional love.

I mean it. I do not think that what the current President, or any of his predecessors or successors for that matter, is asking that we blindly follow his will like an Imperator, but rather that we should willingly and with open hearts and minds do what is best for the safety of our nation. We are now entering a very confusing period of the classic security dilemma with an identifiable opponent, namely terrorism. Given that innovation to the dilemma, there can be no real prediction how, or if, this conflict will ever be resolved.

You may be offended by Bush's actions, but let me remind you that we are still free.

Another quote I ask you all to read by Donald Kagan from an article he had published in the Intercollegiate Review, is "Free countries like our own have an even more powerful claim on the patriotism of their citizens than do others, and our country has an even greater need of it than most. Every country requires a high degree of cooperation and unity among its citizens if it is to achieve the internal harmony that every good society requires. Unity and cooperation must rest on something shared and valued in common. Most countries have relied on the common ancestry and traditions of their people as the basis of their unity, but the United States of America can rely on no such commonality. We are an enormously diverse and varied people, almost all immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. We come from every continent on the face of the earth, our forebears spoke, and many of us still speak, many different languages, and all the races and religions of the world are to be found among us. The great strengths provided by this diversity are matched by great dangers. We are always vulnerable to divisions among us that can be exploited to set one group against another and thus to destroy the unity that has enabled us to flourish.

We live in a time when civic devotion has been undermined and national unity is under attack. The individualism that is so crucial a part of our tradition is often used to destroy civic responsibility. The idea of a common American culture, enriched by the diverse elements that compose it but available equally to all, is under assault. Attempts are made to replace our common culture with narrower and politically divisive programs that are certain to set one group of Americans against another" (Kagan, p3).

As to why Bush did what he did, read http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512191334.asp

Just so that my position is made very clear, I did not vote for Bush. I voted for neither politician since I did not agree with any of them. I will always endeavor to support the President, however, as this country cannot function without such support and faith. It is because we are able to work together for our future that we remain a great and free nation, regardless of our differences.

[whslax1990]

Are we going to ignore my previous post or just deny the facts. I've had this crazy suspicion that most democrats really do that outside the forum.

[twin58]

the WHOLE CONGRESS was breifed on the status and progress of the wire taps regularly,...

This is absolutely not so. We take you now to the White House:

Bush's Radio Address last Saturday (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html)

The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.

Selected Congressional members were briefed, not all 535 members of the Senate and House. Who were those members?

A glimpse inside the supersecret world of intel (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10544654/)

Rockefeller letter exposes concern about ‘checks and balances’
ANALYSIS

By Ken Strickland
NBC News producer

WASHINGTON - Who knows how many times West Virginia's Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has sat on his hands or held his tongue about how our country gathers intelligence in the war on terror. But on Saturday, when President Bush acknowledged a highly classified domestic spying program, Rockefeller was liberated and spoke out against it.
....

The New York Times broke the story on Friday (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html) about the National Security Agency program of domestic wiretapping. The next day the president “outed” the program, saying he had the authority to do it and that “leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.”
....

Membership has its privileges
As a member of the so-called “gang of four” which includes the top Republican and Democrat of the Senate and House intelligence committees, Rockefeller was one of four members of Congress who received those briefings. The group can be summoned to the White House on short notice to be advised on the most sensitive intelligence information or plans for covert operations. It is safe to assume that if the United States is, in fact, operating secret prisons overseas, these four know plenty about them.

But membership also has its burdens. The "gang" — Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan and Democrats Rockefeller and Rep. Jane Harman of California — is virtually gagged from discussing anything from meetings with anyone outside the group — not even other senators, staffers or lawyers with security clearance on the intelligence committees. “You can't discuss it with anybody as long as you live,” Rockefeller said Monday.

And for Rockefeller and Harmon, the senior Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence committees, respectively, membership can be even more problematic. If they want to object to anything the administration is doing, they're forbidden from doing so publicly.
....

Four members. That's all. (Edited on February 19, 2006: it's actually eight members of the House and Senate.) Once they had been informed, if they had any objections, they could do nothing. Senator Rockefeller was so concerned about his inability to act that he composed a handwritten letter and gave it to Cheney. (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/030717_Rockefeller_Intell_Letter.pdf) Writing this letter on a computer would have been a violation of security.

If your family does not get the Washington Post delivered daily, it is surely at your school library. Both the New York Times and the Post are at all the public libraries. I believe the nearest one to you is the Sherwood Hall branch of the Fairfax County Public Library. The story is changing quickly, with more details being made known with every passing day, so one does have to hustle to keep up with things.

The more you learn about this, the more you recognize that the revelations are equally shocking to conservatives and liberals alike.

[Frndlefire]

Are we going to ignore my previous post or just deny the facts. I've had this crazy suspicion that most democrats really do that outside the forum.
calm whs....you didn't really bring up any big discussion points in your last post. I know I don't have anything to say about that phone number or am going to try and refute your belief that because it happened in the past it is acceptable in the future...

[whslax1990]

Howabout it ended what all of you were discussing, Personal invasion of privacy. Theres really nothing to discuss since obviously bush isnt listening to you and aunt sally talk about christmas.

[Frndlefire]

Howabout it ended what all of you were discussing, Personal invasion of privacy. Theres really nothing to discuss since obviously bush isnt listening to you and aunt sally talk about christmas.
your semi-relevant comment about some phone line you can call to, supposedly, check it your line is being tapped ends all discussions about the legality of spying on US citizens? wow...who knew this topic had such a simple resolution

[Eclipse]

Yea whs there have been some really informed people posting about this topic with some really intelligent answers. Dont be upset if your post didnt get noticed. Its not a personal attack bro. Relax

[twin58]

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, is the law that Bush claims gives him authority for his actions.

US Code: Title 50, Chapter 36—Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html)

Almost all legal scholars, regardless of political outlook, have rejected Bush's claims. Two notable exceptions have been John Yoo of Berkeley, (http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/facultyProfile.php?facID=235) and Paul Rothstein of Georgetown. (http://www.law.georgetown.edu/curriculum/tab_faculty.cfm?Status=Faculty&Detail=318) Yoo's response doesn't surprise me, but Rothstein's does.

The ACLU took out a full-page ad in the New York Times on December 22 (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23203res20051222.html) calling for an outside special counsel. Here is an excerpt from the letter the ACLU sent to AG Gonzales:

ACLU Letter to Attorney General Gonzales Requesting the Appointment of Outside Special Counsel (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/23184leg20051221.html)

Likewise, there is no limitless statutory exception for warrantless wiretapping during wartime. FISA expressly governs wiretapping procedures "during time of war" and provides that "the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen days following a declaration of war by the Congress." 50 U.S.C. § 1811 (emphasis added). Thus, even to the extent the administration is claiming there was a declaration of war somehow allowing warrantless wiretapping based on the resolution on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan, 115 Stat. 224 (2001), federal law expressly permits such warrantless surveillance to continue only for 15 days after a declaration of war is passed by Congress.

In fact, Congress declined to declare war and trigger an array of executive authorities attendant to such a declaration under Article I § 8 of the Constitution. And, even if the resolution were misconstrued as a declaration of war, however, it did not provide any authority to violate federal law on wiretapping. The interplay between the express provisions in FISA governing wiretapping in the U.S. and the use of force declaration naturally leads to the conclusion that, at most, 15 days of wiretapping without a court order was and is still the law, even in time of war. Our federal courts are functioning and the FISA court has been fully operational for the past four years. The use of force resolution provided no extension of the 15-day exception to oversight by the secret court that was created to review all national security wiretaps in the U.S. relating to international terrorism or sabotage. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 (c and d). Moreover, the limited exception to judicial approval for the 15 days immediately following the declaration of war does not provide for any extensions to this one-time exception. Compare 50 U.S.C. § 1811 with, e.g., 50 U.S.C. § 50 U.S.C § 105(e)(2) (providing extensions for court ordered wiretaps, available only upon approval by the FISA court). Any extension of Section 1811 of FISA would render the 15-day exception meaningless. Nor was any exception to the criminal liability in Section 1809 of FISA made part of the use of force resolution. It is black letter law that the president may not interpret our criminal laws to avoid his own criminal liability.

But what if you don't care for the ACLU? Perhaps Bob Barr (http://www.bobbarr.org/) is more to your liking. Here is an excerpt from his op ed piece from Wednesday's Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Law doesn't back Bush act (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1205/21edbarr.html)

When ... Bush explained, over the course of three days, his administration's secret interception of communications involving American citizens without court approval, he repeatedly cited three authorities for such action. One of these was Article II of our Constitution, which provides authority for the president to serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. Not relying on my memory — which has proved faulty from time to time (rarely, of course) — I reread Article II to determine if in fact there was language in it that I had missed previously, that when the president serves as commander in chief, he can order federal agencies to violate the law.

Of course, I found no such authority, because none exists. Such was never even presumed to be implied by the drafters of that magnificent document. In fact, federal courts — which over the decades have deferred greatly to the power of the president when he takes action involving national security — have never held that when a president dons the hat of commander in chief he simultaneously is immunized from having to follow the laws of the land or of the other provisions contained in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

Yet, this is precisely the power the president is now claiming. Truly, it is a breathtaking assertion of presidential power. If, in fact, the country allows it to stand, then there will be virtually no limit to the areas into which it might extend. Remember, the president claims that the venue of the so-called "war" against terror is as much within our borders as outside, and its duration perpetual.

Bruce Fein, ex-Reagan deputy AG, and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute have begun talking about impeachment.

Conservative Scholars Argue Bush's Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/conservative-scholars-argue-bush%E2%80%99s-wiretapping-is-an-impeachable-offense/)

QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?

BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don't need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It's more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.

NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.

[ColtsLax]

while thats compeling evidence for against using wiretaps against american people, it has no bearing on useing wiretaps on international calls between Alqueada operatives.

[twin58]

... no bearing on useing wiretaps on international calls between Alqueada operatives.

Electronic surveillance without a court order is allowed, as long as it is conducted according to the conditions set forth in Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, § 1802 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html) which is that portion of FISA that specifically covers this activity, if my reading is correct.

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or....

I snipped the rest, because it's a lot of "party of the first part" stuff.

The problem is that Bush, by failing to comply with the conditions set forth in FISA, has violated Federal law. Further, he has stated that he will continue to violate Federal law. This is widely seen as an impeachable offense.

[whslax1990]

your semi-relevant comment about some phone line you can call to, supposedly, check it your line is being tapped ends all discussions about the legality of spying on US citizens? wow...who knew this topic had such a simple resolution

My reply got deleted, sorry admin. What I said was look at my post at the top of the page, not just the phone # part.