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

Here ya go:

LINK

As you can see, the president can't do this without proper notification and I don't think that 3-4 years later meets the requirements of the law.

Plus there is the "communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers" issue to be looked at.

 

There are also criminal sanctions for breaking this law:

LINK

 

Yes, and that has been going on for many years and well before Nine Eleven. I think that Bush has done the correct thing and I think that The New York Times jeopardized our security.

 

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

We can't fight terrorism by becoming the sort of society they want us to be.

That is just incremental surrender. We need a president who will fight them as an American.

 

Such talk! There is no liberty that allows traitors to have free communications with the enemy. The Democrats are nuts.

 

KenH, that is a law. You have not proven that he broke it, and unless you know the nature of what's happening you can't prove he broke it. He said the demos have been fully briefed on what is going on and have not registered a complaint. If he thought it was needed and the democrats agree, I would assume that it is indeed needed. Wouldn't you?

 

This is nonsense! Bush broke the law! Now whether or not he gets away with it is the question.

 

President Bush may well have broken the law. We'll have to see what the Congressional investigations find out.

What will be interesting to see is if the conclusion is that President Bush broke the law if there will be Christians on this board who try to excuse it.

Regardless, I am just about convinced that for the good of the country that the Democrats need to win control of both houses of Congress next November in order to keep a lid on the excesses of the Republicans.

 

"This is nonsense! Bush broke the law! Now whether or not he gets away with it is the question."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stone him! Stone him! Forget about due process, stone him! I bet you never said a word about Clinton breaking the law, and he was just trying to get his jollies, not save America! And he did not consult with the other party and get there blessings. I guess he just could not tell them what he planned to do whith that cigar!

 

"Regardless, I am just about convinced that for the good of the country that the Democrats need to win control of both houses of Congress next November in order to keep a lid on the excesses of the Republicans."------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken you really need to do some research. Clinton signed many executive orders that changed how the executive branch would respond to a crisis, it gave the EB a much stronger ability to overide the constitution if needed. Most of them were very alarming. Besides, what are you doing? Are you calling Hamas or something???

 

So because President Clinton broke the law you are going to excuse President Bush if he broke the law?

 

I am not excusing President Clinton either. As far as I am concerned the last time we had a really great president was Grover Cleveland.

 

Yeah, Ken, but given this fact, putting the democrats in power will change nothing. If anything, they are more hostile to the constitution than any republican dared ever be.

"So because President Clinton broke the law you are going to excuse President Bush if he broke the law?"-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think it is that simple, So I have not tried and convicted him. If you show me that any info gathered was used for personal gain, than I'll be worried, but as long as it was used to stop terrorist, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Most of those who want to hang Bush, gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt, even after he got the cabinet to stand on the white house porch and vouch for him, remember that. Bush simply says he is acting in the best interest of the country and has not tried to cover anything up. He as not put the cabinet on the news, he has not shaken his finger at the nation, he has not argued over what the meaning of the word is is. He should be given the benefit of the doubt unless someone can show the spirit of the law was broken and someones privacy was invaded for unsundry reasons.

 

I'm sitting here begging them to come and eavesdrop on me, listen to my phone calls, bug my house. Maybe they'll move the satellite truck a little closer. I would be happy to give someone an earful and a headache from listening to me ramble on and on like a dripping faucet about illegal aliens. Are you listening, Uncle Sam?

 

Now that made me smile. LadyEagle, you're too much!


Jamie

 

Bush broke no law. He does not have to sit back and allow our domestic enemies to communicate freely with our foreign enemies. How many attacks against the Pentagon must we endure before the American people wake up and realize that we are in a war with Islamofascism? There are people within our borders who seek to destroy us.

 

No, LadyEagle, you will have to mention Bush, or president, and bomb or assinate in the same call or post. Wait, wait who is knocking my door?

 

Wow! So you think it's okay to break the law if it is something you consider to be good. Wow! You can't pick and choose lawbreaking. If you are going to permit for actions you approve of then you are going to have to permit for actions that you do not approve of.

If Hillary Clinton was president I wonder if you would be so willing to give the benefit of the doubt?

 

I guess the feeling is mutual because Hillary said that she loved Arkansas.

I was going to start a new thread but I will write it right here:

THE NEW YORK TIMES IS GUILTY OF TREASON.

 

Prove it, cmg. Prove it.

Also, if the New York Times hadn't held off on this story for a year, Bush may have lost his re-election bid.