Let's see, Right Politics is blogging on Taliban Johnnie wanting his sentence cut short. He's sorry for being caught. Too bad CIA operative Mike Spann is dead and can't come back, Johnnie.
Things are getting interesting on Lombardi Av. in Green Bay. Will Sherman be fired and will Favre retire?
I dont think the "but but Clinton!!" cry from the right will work this time.
According to Bush's own words just this past Sunday he said nothing legally has changed, any wiretap on Americans requires court approval. And I don't believe the Constitution gives ANY president, right or left, the power to go around the law.
I know the right bloggers will follow Bush no matter what. I see it very clearly now.
Sure it's a "non-story" to you, because to you Bush can do no wrong.
Wing, honey, I posted link after link of opinion and news. You posted your opinion.
Which is fine, but you obviously got your staunch belief that something nefarious is going on from somewhere. Care to share?
I'm just curious since every source I've come across is either quoting "anonymous sources", slanted opinion or research showing nothing illegal is happening.
Cheers,
DP
Oh, Wing, here's another article
and not exactly from a right-winged biased source.
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
Sounds pretty darn clear to me...
I don't believe in unchecked government power and that's what we are seeing.
I have yet to see a non-partisan explanation of where in the Constitution it gives a president the ability to go around the law just because he wants to.
When it comes to issues like this I like to imagine the tables being turned. Would you be comfortable giving Kerry or Dean this kind of power? To spy on Americans in secret without court approval? Or without having to answer to anyone except an appointed Attorney General ?
I serioiusly doubt those who are making excuses for Bush on this issue would make the same excuse for a Democrat president.
But it's not going around the law, Wing. That's what I've been researching and posting about today. Please read some of the articles I linked to, okay? It's alright with me to disagree, but not when the facts are staring you in the face.
The last paragraph of the Chicago Tribune article I think addresses your point:
Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.
But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.
Good read thanks for the link.
I still stand by my opinion. No president should have such broad powers, or if he does have such broad unchecked powers they should be limited in some way. For instance, I can understand needing immediate intelligence following an attack on US soil (9/11). But how long should that power be held? The war on terror may last 30 years. And what will be next in the name of security?
I believe the legality issue will be played out in court, as it should be.
Okay.
Whatever.
*shrug*
Commenting by HaloScan
