Are you concerned Bush may be abusing his powers?

Ken,

I didn't realize you were part of the Chuck wagon gang. You've struck me as far more reasonable than that (though maybe wrong sometimes )

 

That is easy statement now.. What happens when having a Bible is illegal? Or anything that is worshipping anything other than "the man" is illegal?

You see it's not what you're willing to give up now because "you don't have anything to hide"... because after you let pandora out of the box and give them a little room to search, then the rules change, and they are looking for something you DO have.

I don't have anything to hide now either, but I am not willing to give up my freedom just because of that either.

Jamie

 

By the time that happens, and it will, I will be beheaded like the others who take a stand for Jesus Christ, if the Lord has not taken me home already.

 

How do you know? In North Korea, China, Cuba, Sudan it has already happened.

Too many "Conservatives" are trusting a man rather than defending the US Constitution. The President is no King and he himself is subject to obeying the US Constitution. We have a God given right by our Laws to remove such a President out of office. Trusting a President is like North Koreans saying we will trust Kim Jong il to make the right decisions for us. This conversation does help me understand a little bit how the German people were deceived by Adolph Hitler.

I think if this was President Hillary Clinton many of the neocons on here would not be so anxious to let the President do whatever he wants.

 

Kiffen, for the record, I no longer trust the President, the Congress, or the Supreme Court. As far as the US Constitution goes, Congress no longer believes in the US Constitution. As per former Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican) - the "constitution is no longer relevent."

If a National Martial Law is ever declared after some terrorist attack, it will all be over anyway, and all this discussion is just moot over what the President can and cannot do.

Let about six or eight nukes go off in as many cities and we will all find out just how much power the Constitution has - zip.

 

agree with you.

Overall True.

Any person who says that or believes that should never run for office or be elected. He or she is not a true patriot who opposes the US Constitution. If the Constitution is not relevant then neither is the USA for the USA ceases to be when the Constitution is irrelevant.

The Constitution defines us. It is what makes us different from Iran, North Korea. Our allegiance as Americans is to that Document and when we see it as irrelevant then we cease to be patriots.

People who value their lives over Liberty may not deserve either if they betray the Constitution.

 

I agree.
scary huh.

 

Just thought that column was spot on. By the way, I emailed it to a local talk show host that has a radio show from 6:00-7:30 a.m. on weekdays and on Friday morning he read the column just before he ended his show.

 

Nothing to hide here. Not hiding terrorism tools, not hiding drugs, not hiding illegal aliens, not hiding any contraband, nothing. Christians who live transparent lives have nothing to fear from a police search. The only way to root out illegal aliens & terrorist groups in our country & possible hidden nukes is to do door-to-door police searches, unannounced, of course. </font>[/QUOTE]So, you don't have a problem with doing away with search warrants completely? Sounds like you would have been very happy living in the old Soviet Union!

 

President Bush and Cabinet are not concerned about law abiding people like us. His concern is for 'secret cells' already in our county who have blended into our society and seem as innocent as a 'bunny rabbit.'

He also is concerned about transmissions of Email and cell phone activity and other means where the terrorists are making contact with the above mentioned people.

Yes, I want a warrant before they would search my home, which protects our personal liberties. But if terrorists are planning to explode a chemical or biological bomb in Philadelphia or NYC, he should have the right through the FBI to thoroughly investigate said people. I am sure with such power as the president holds, he can find a Federal judge to approve such surveilance.

Now we have our civil liberty protected and also our Homeland Security, not unless you would like to see millions of Americans lying dead in our largest cities in America.

I am for the Patriot Act.

 

Have you forgotten the Nixon abuses? He was spying on the loyal opposition. His deputies broke into the Democratic campaign headquaters. They broke into the doctor's office of one anti-war protester and stole his psychiatric records. They planted not just spies but instigators into the protest movements. He used the FBI to spy on people on his personal "enemies list".

The whole point of getting a warrant from a separate branch of government is to make sure that the wiretaps are for legitimate governmental purposes and not for private vendettas. Don't think it couldn't happen - it has happened before.

I don't know that it has happened in this case, but it is conceivable. Once any group starts to think of itself as "the" government, then anything that threatens it or any of its members, whether personally or professionally, is in danger under the guise of "patriotism".

Oversight is always necessary; lack of oversight begs for abuse.

 

How far we've come...

Nixon was getting us out of Vietnam and working on numerous foreign policy initiatives. IOW's, "he was doing a good job." Yet Watergate brought him down... and rightly so.

Fast forward to our last president. They held 500 FBI files on their "loyal opposition". They obstructed the investigation of Vince Foster's death. He committed a felony. Rose Law destroyed documents pertinent to an on-going investigation. One of WJC's first acts was to fire the federal lawyers responsible for investigating his activities in Arkansas... and their peers to cover his trail. He changed the procedure for selling technology to foreign gov'ts from the State Dept to Commerce... allowing Loral to sell missile guidance technology to China.

The list of Clinton offenses that dwarf Watergate goes on and on... but libs, the media, and Dems successfully circled the wagons and convinced the American people that it was the dirty Republicans playing partisan politics.

What was the difference? Republicans in the Nixon era turned against Nixon because he was wrong. (Like they did against Livingston, Gingrich,... and more recently just for appearances DeLay and Lott.) They knew the damage to them politically but thought that the country was more important than their political power, control, or fortunes. The Dems weren't willing to allow their party to be damaged for the sake of the country so they supported Clinton even though unethical if not unlawful behavior and cover-ups were the rule during that administration... not the exception.

The whole point of getting a warrant from a separate branch of government is to make sure that the wiretaps are for legitimate governmental purposes and not for private vendettas. Don't think it couldn't happen - it has happened before.

I don't know that it has happened in this case, but it is conceivable. Once any group starts to think of itself as "the" government, then anything that threatens it or any of its members, whether personally or professionally, is in danger under the guise of "patriotism".

Oversight is always necessary; lack of oversight begs for abuse. [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

In today's partisan political climate, the idea of a "loyal opposition" seems to have gone by the wayside.

 

Actually I think there is much more than that.

Privacy was considered important because it protected dissenters and dissenting views from being squashed.

I agree... and Dems/libs stand for greater centralization of power with the federal gov't so that they can achieve social justice. The likelihood, scope, and impact of abuse is just one more reason to oppose "big government" and its solutions.

Decentralization of economic and regulatory power reduces the risks of abuse. If the gov't pie is smaller there will be fewer people trying to control its division... less incentive to "beat" the enemy for its share.

Which is why talk radio and the internet/blog balance to the liberal media is a very, very good thing. It has contributed heavily to a more conservative/libertarian leaning electorate and a more free flow of ideas.

Not surprisingly, there are liberals that want to control political expression on both of these media.

 

They were actually cleared of that by Starr.

As Gilda’s Emily Latella used to say: “Never mind.”

News you can’t use: Here’s what Newsweek reported, two months ago, about the Filegate matter:

That should have been a major news story. But Newsweek placed it at the bottom of a secondary report, and we saw it followed up on exactly nowhere.

Source: Daily Howler 11/19/98 by media critic Bob Somerby (linkie)</font>[/QUOTE]Now if you have any evidence that Starr let that go and indicted Clinton for a far more trivial matter, please present it.

They were actually cleared of that as well.

What - that he lied about having sex with that woman? That is hardly on the same scale as illegal wiretapping.

Proof? Relevancy?

Most your charges are both bogus and proven so, but nevermind. All that really has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Are you arguing that Bush should be allowed to conduct illegal wiretapping on US citizens because Clinton was evil? That's not a very good argument, you must know that. If anything, that would be an argument in favor of curbing executive power.