Conservatives Endorse the Fuhrer Principle

the ACLU is our enemy we should be protesting in front of their offices nationwide

 

The only "sweeping, unchecked power" that the ACLU opposes is that wielded by people who oppose what they want to force on society.

That said, I disagree in whole that any President of any party at any time should be above the law. I don't agree that Bush has violated the law. However, he must remain subject to the rule of law.

Funny that the ACLU folks weren't howling for Clinton to be removed from office after blatantly committing perjury. Just demonstrates their hypocrisy I suppose.

 

There's a third reason for the so called "illegitimate spying" that Roberts leaves out entirely. That being that it is not "illegitimate" at all, but completely authorized by the Constitution and by statute.

 

I never said he had.

Exactly which law is it that the POTUS is supposed to be subject to anyway, and is the rule of this law different for a democrat than a republican? </font>[/QUOTE]All of them... and no.

There is now a question of law about the surveillance. A disagreement amongst experts that at the academic level isn't necessarily partisan.

This is a time when legislation is needed to clarify these powers and limit their exercise.

The logic that "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" is wholly illegitimate.

This issue does need to be addressed. It is not evidence that Bush or anyone violated anyone's constitutional rights by monitoring the domestic phone calls of people having direct links to terrorists or terror suspects.

The hand wringing is totally unnecessary.

There is a serious problem however that isn't even being addressed. That is the politicalization of the CIA. We are now seeing reports of people who tried to supply evidence concerning Soviet assistance to Saddam on WMD's who were systematically suppressed and discredited. We are seeing that the CIA may have sat on taped evidence of WMD's. We know for a fact that Plame and Wilson used their positions to directly do political damage to Bush based on their partisan agendas.

It seems that Slick Willie and cohorts were up to no good at the CIA for 8 years.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=lh&s=br

 

poncho,

This article was already posted by KenH in a different thread. In fact, you've got a post on that thread. We've seen this already. Are you playing the Ken game now, i.e., the more threads you post on the same topic the more likely you are to get an answer?

 

Yes and no. When the Constitution or the execution of law under the Constitution is in question then the legislature has both the right and responsibility to create governing statutes.

BTW, the Constitution doesn't specifically grant this power to the executive branch. However, an Amendment is needed to cover the various forms of modern surveillance and communications that could have never been anticipated by the founders.

 

Where have you been sleeping? "at the precise moment"? Bush has been being raked over the coals for years about WMD's... surely you remember "Bush lied and people died", right? The mantra has been "Bush lied about WMD's since before the election... I wouldn't say this evidence is particularly timely at all... there is very little political benefit right now.

In spite of what liberals would like to believe, there is no ground swell of support for impeachment over the surveillance. Even if there were, the best they could hope for is a referral of charges. It is debatable among the best legal minds as to whether any laws were broken. It further appears that Bush had assent from both other branches.

How do we know this to be fact? Links? </font>[/QUOTE]Because they gave interpretations of information that specifically in accord with the Kerry campaign.

You can look up Wilson's editorial yourself and note the timing. Both of them were involved in the Kerry campaign.

 

Yes and no. When the Constitution or the execution of law under the Constitution is in question then the legislature has both the right and responsibility to create governing statutes.

</font>[/QUOTE]I'll go for that... if you can point me to the section of the Constitution that outlines that "right and responsibility" concerning powers granted to the Executive Branch.

 

If, as this article claims, "Saddam had amassed 100 million tons of munitions - roughly 60 percent of the entire U.S. arsenal" WHY DIDN'T HE FIGHT IT OUT TO THE DEATH WITH US? Why did he allow that much of an arsenal to be removed from his use? From this guy's perspective, Russia might have joined him.

 

"IF" this info is credible then he probably miscalculated. My guess would be that he thought that if he could hide the weapons then let the inspectors back in to "prove" he didn't have them that the west would at least be divided enough to prevent an invasion. The west was divided (although one would have to question the sincerity of German, French, and Russian protests since they were engaging Iraq in ways contrary to UN mandates). Even with the division, our cowboy president surprised Saddam by not asking permission from liberal gov'ts and political crooks around the world before pulling the trigger.

 

Conservatives Endorse the Fuhrer Principle

I haven't seen this much dung since I used to slop the hogs!

 

I certainly hope everyone is aware that the OP story & link is a opinion/commentary piece off of a crackpot website. It seems some folks are commenting on it as though it were objective news or something.