Bush chides Democrats over intel bill

If the Bush administration is not asking phone companies to do something illegal, then why are trying to get the Congress to give them immunity? Surely they are not afraid of a few lawsuits that would be without merit if there is nothing illegal going on.

It is clear that the Bush administration cares little to nothing about the civil liberties of the American people. I hope that Democrats and Republicans who care about protecting our civil liberties will continue to stand up to the Bush administration on this issue.

 

If President Bush is fundamentally right then the U.S. constitution means nothing.

 

True Carpo :applause:

 

Isn't it funny that no one has committed on Bush's refusal to back down on the immunity part of the legislation. If it were a democratic president, these same people would be hollering about him putting the phone companies ahead of the needs of our fighting men and women.

I would love to see a Bush supporter comment on this (without the cute little remark Carpro).

 

Naw, Ken is right which is why Bush is trying to amune the telecom companies. Those companies must have told him they feel exposed and want some assurance they won't be liable. I believe in civil liberties or at least I believe in preserving our right to privacy. Since this is all in the name of terroism, why is it too much to ask the president to present his case to a judge who will then decide if he has enough evidence to justify taps? This would safe guard against actions like Hoover used while over the FBI.

 

I noticed you are blind to Bush putting the protection of the phone companines ahead of the safety of our troops. What about this?

 

Law suits can be for tying up legislation rather than proving some wrong has been done. Protecting the Phone companies is reasonable. there is no reason to sue phone companies for doing what is requested by them from the Governement. If you want to prove wrong doing do it by sueing those who made the search. Not the phone companies.

 

How rediculous, there are lawyers being paid on both sides of this issue.

 

There is if the Government asked them to do something that's illegal. As of today, what they did is/was illegal. Even if it is leggalized in the future it doesn't change the fact that laws were broken.

 

If so, then why is the Bush administration risking its pet legislation over something that isn't already happening?

 

According to this article there are lawsuits...

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9715930-7.html

 

Because no charges have be filed is no proof no crime was committed. There are lots of crimes in which no one has been charged.

Our Constitution says warrants will only be issued based on probable cause and when supported by oath or affirmation which means going presenting your case before a judge BEFORE you violate ones rights. Changing the law afterwards to make legal the crime may be something the president can get away with but I personally disagree.

We still do have a right to an opinion unless Bush has violated that also. :BangHead:

 

Really?

What laws? Who was directly injured? What case is pending against them to suggest such?

The USC just dismissed a case because no injury could be found.


And by the way. If your not talking with a known terrorist then there is no chance you could be injured by the measure.