Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S.

I think Bush has acted apporipriately for the situation. When the big one goes off, all you little chiefs will wish you would have let the real chief do his job, like we indians are.

 

Sorry to break this to you, Bunyon, but giving up your constitutional rights as a pay-off for protection won't provide you with security in the long run.

Remember, there probably won't always be a president in office that you like.

 

I understand completely, KenH. As you recall, Clinton signed several executive orders that basically gave the executive branch absolute power in a national crisis. So if a A-bomb goes off you can kiss your freedom goodbye. Unfortunately, I am willing to give a little now, so I wont have to give it all tomorrow. It is the proverbial rock and hard place, but there it is. Besides, the new today says Bush stated he has no intentions of rescinding the order. He apparently believes it is the only way to stop the hover damn from being blown up or something equally catastrophic. I am not sure how significant this is anyway. I new voice intercept analyst in the army who told me they could listen to a phone call any time they wanted. They were supposed to turn the dial if they realized it was the conversation of a private citizen, but you know. Anyhow, I think the only change is that the executive branch does not have to go to the court every time now. They would have gotten approval anyway, this just saves time. Besides, I don't want the courts monitoring every move a war time president makes! If you want to know who is eroding your constitutional rights, there they are, the courts.

 

And I don't want a president who is a dictator which is what he would be without having to answer to the law and the U.S. constitution!

Maybe the Republicans have been in power to long now. Remember, power corrupts.

 

"And I don't want a president who is a dictator which is what he would be without having to answer to the law and the U.S. constitution!

Maybe the Republicans have been in power to long now. Remember, power corrupts."-------------------------------------------------------------------

Not only that KenH. Absolute power corrupts absolutely! But it was Clinton who signed the most executive orders of this nature, but the media did not make a big deal out of it. HMMMMM! If we wanted to avoid this, we should have stuck with our judeo/christian values in the first place. We should have stood up when the secular liberalist began to dismantle our freedoms and the foundations upon which they are built. It is the most liberal governments that have stolen the most privacy. In England and Canada you can't go anywhere without being filmed!

 

Let's think about that for a moment. Well, the Iranian government and the Taliban government in Afghanistan aren't/weren't exactly what one would call "liberal".

 

Apples and oranges! If you want to compare America Canada and Britain are the apples, Iran is an Orange. But believe me ken, I feel the same way you do. But there is now no alternative unless you are willing to risk NY or Chicago. We forgot that we owed ALL or blessings to God, and not a supposedly "secular" constitution, and now we are in a no win situation on this issue.

 

The media isn't making a big deal out of Bush repealing Clinton's EXO's either.

 

But we got two of the worlds tallest buildings on the ground and 4000 dead. How can you say it is a scar tactic. That is a red herring. And I think if you were to research it you would find that the courts did not have the kind of power under the forefathers it now has! So none of that goes anywhere. And clearly it is the SCOTUS who has disregarded the constitution.

 

I haven't read any further than right here in this thread ,but I believe you are over-reacting.

I'll say right now that it is legal or he wouldn't allow it.

 

Because they've always been trashing the constitution is all the more reason to learn to live quietly under tyranny.

 

You aren't serious, are you? You think a president would never use government power to do something illegal? Have you ever heard of Richard Nixon?

 

No way Ken, the only difference between a common criminal and the government is that the government has the power to pass laws to make their criminality legal.

 

You aren't serious, are you? You think a president would never use government power to do something illegal? Have you ever heard of Richard Nixon? </font>[/QUOTE]After reading the rest of the thread and today's news, there is no choice but to conclude I was correct.

You are over-reacting.

And it was legal.

 

President Bush's actions in this matter violated the law and the federal constitution.

It is a sad day when some Americans regard the leader of our government as a king instead of as a president.

 

It's only illegal if you get caught and convicted, and then there's a good chance that if you are a "public official" you'll get a pardon a medal and a promotion. Ken isn't over reacting.

 

"President Bush's actions in this matter violated the law and the federal constitution.

It is a sad day when some Americans regard the leader of our government as a king instead of as a president"----------------------------------------------

Ken, if that were true, Bush would not be on national media telling us, "yeah....I oredered it and I will continue to order it".

 

I voted for George W. Bush for president twice so I try to cut him all the slack I can, but when he goes too far in his policies I must call a spade a spade.