« Quaker Overseers Deemed Politically Incorrect | Main | New Low for Moonbat Jack Murtha »

I am sick and tired of the traitorous whining over President Bush's latest alleged legal violation. Tell me, why do these Republicans hate America?



Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), "No president is ever above the law. ... We are a nation of laws. You cannot avoid or dismiss a law."



Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) “the president's decision to inform a handful of members of Congress was sufficient . . .I think it does not constitute a check and balance,. . .you can't have the administration and a select number of members alter the law. It can't be done.''



Sen. John E. Sununu (R-NH) "it is a little bit of a stretch for the administration to say the surveillance program was authorized by the post-Sept. 11 resolution . . . This is the kind of activity that should be approved in statute."



Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and Rep. C.L.Otter (R-ID) "The Founders envisioned a nation where people's privacy was respected and the government's business was open,. . . [Bush's] actions turn that vision on its head. If the government is willing to bend the rules on this issue, how are we supposed to believe it won't abuse the powers granted by the Patriot Act?"



Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) "We can't become an outcome-based democracy. Even in a time of war, you have to follow the process, because that's what a democracy is all about: a process.”



Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) “[Bush's] action is unequivocally contrary to the express and implied requirements of federal law that such surveillance of U.S. persons inside the U.S. (regardless of whether their communications are going abroad) must be preceded by a court order.



Alleged associates of al-Qaeda are today's targets of that breathtaking assertion of presidential power. Tomorrow, it may be your phone calls or e-mails that will be swept up into our electronic infrastructure and secretly kept in a growing file attached to your name.



Bruce Fein, “It's more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that, as [former Supreme Court Justice] Robert Jackson said, would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant. . . President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law.



Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute and a Federalist Society member: "The text of FISA is unambiguous: "A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance ... except as authorized by statute." That provision covers communications from or to U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens in the United States. Moreover, Title III (the Wiretap Act) further provides that "procedures in this chapter and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance ... may be conducted." Accordingly,warrantless surveillance absent an authorizing statute would violate the FISA requirement."

Was any law broken in the protecting of these Americans citizens lives? I have not seen ANY proof yet, child. I do think that most Americans do choose to LIVE and appreciates that the president is guarding their lives. Voters will decide who is better to protect them.

I wonder if Childish is aware that when the NSA went to FISA in 1998 for permission to conduct wiretaps on Zacarias Moussouai (the 20th hijacker) the FISA judge denied the request, partly out of privacy concerns, mostly out of spite (he was miffed at the FBI).

My point was that this issue is not a Democrat issue--Republicans are alarmed as well.

You're the first rightwinger I've heard mention Moussouai ( must be hanging out with the wrong crowd)

Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that the last thing the Bush Cabal wants brought into this discussion is the Moussaoui case?

Maybe they suspect that after the initial "Gosh, when you put it that way I guess it does make sense that he had to break the law to keep us safe", the very next thought from an average Joe might be - "By the way, why didn't the FBI apply for a FISA warrant to search the computer of a known terrorist associate wanting lessons to fly, but not take off or land, a commercial airliner?"

Humm… good question. Especially considering that at this very same time there were multiple alarms coming from a variety of sources - including the August 6th CIA Presidential Briefing - specifically warning of an imminent al Qaeda attack with the potential for hijackings!

Since it's inception the FISA court has approved 19000 warrants and denied only 4. So why on earth would someone high up (way up?) in John Ashcroft's FBI refuse to pursue a FISA (or even a criminal) warrant in the Moussaoui case?

Colleen Rowley, the FBI agent who had requested the Moussaoui warrant, was so overwhelmed at the inexplicable bureaucratic roadblocks the FBI put in her way, that she was compelled to testify before Congress about her concerns. She wrote in a follow up report that some field agents were frustrated enough to joke that key officials at FBI headquarters "had to be spies or moles... who were actually working for Osama bin Laden to have so undercut [our] effort."

In short, your appeal to the Moussouai incident only further highlights the incompetence of the current administration, and you will do well to keep mum about it.

If you "patriots" weren't so intent on protecting your Dear Leader perhaps the rest of us Americans could count on you to defend our democracy.

In short, your appeal to the Moussouai incident only further highlights the incompetence of the current administration, and you will do well to keep mum about it.

Current admin? The Moussouai warrant was denied in 1998 dipshit.

Humm… good question. Especially considering that at this very same time there were multiple alarms coming from a variety of sources - including the August 6th CIA Presidential Briefing - specifically warning of an imminent al Qaeda attack with the potential for hijackings!

Bif frackin' whoop. The same warnings about al Qaeda had been circulated throughout the 90's.

You lefties constantly bitch and point fingers at Bush for not "connecting the dots." Then, when the Bush administration takes down the wall that prevented the intelligence community and law enforcement from sharing intelligence (a wall that was reinforced under Jamie Gorelick in the Clinton Admin), and does wiretap surveillance of people communicating with known al Qaeda affiliates, you guys start shrieking like stuck pigs. How is the administration supposed to connect the dots while blindfolded and handcuffed?

I really think sometimes you guys want there to be another terrorist attack. You sure as Hell act like it, since you oppose every reasonable step taken to secure the country. You're always whining about how "the whole world was with us on 9-11," and then we had to go and piss them off by defending ourselves.

I have YET to hear ONE example of ANYONE, wrongly having their civil liberties infringed by this program.

Sure Iyman Farris, who planned to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge was nabbed using this plan. Would New Yorkers have stomached the loss of that landmark and God knows how many lives, with the knowledge that at least his civil liberties were intact?

The Moussouai case is another good example. Had we been able to get that information, or had we been able to bug the other September 11th hijackers, we might have prevented September 11th.

What I find most interesting about this entire episode is the willingness of Bush hating lefties to side with terrorists who would just as surely kill them too.

Wel, I don't see how wanting to preserve the the tri-partite checks and balances qualifies dissenters as lovers of terr'ism, but then again I don't come here expecting sound reason.

I just read something about the Moussouai case by your favorite moonbat Colleen Rowley. You can check her comments over here. (warning: lovers of evil doers blog)

The gist of what she says is:

1) "The bottom line is that THE FISA LAW ITSELF WAS NOT THE REASON THE FBI FAILED TO INSPECT MOUSSAOUI'S PERSONAL EFFECTS AND COMPUTER FILES. Rather, the faulty interpretations and failure to share and analyze intelligence sufficiently is what enabled Moussaoui to escape further investigation."

2) "to the extent that the "FISA wall" issue was problematic. . . it was remedied when the Patriot Act brought down the "wall" shortly after 9-11"

3) (paraphrase) the 72-hour retro window allowed FISA demolishes the lie that the executive branch is hamstrung in its fight against terror.

Though many of you will not give her opinion any credence, thought you'd like to hear an educated opinion on the matter.

bon appetit!

Child: Not sure you are old enough to remember the immortal words of Saturday Night Live character, The Church Lady:

"Isn't that SPECIAL!"

I love it when you folks talk about checks and balances... sounds good, but has nothing to do with the duties thrust upon the President under the constitution. I'm sure your public school education omitted any serious study of that document, but with the blessings of the internet (Thanks to all that wonderfup Dept. of Defense spending) you can go read the constitution for yourself.

What you are advocating is a power grab by the legislative. This kind of thing has been going on for years. Or do you suggest that somehow the Legislative or Judicial have some inherent constitutional responsibility for administering laws and protecting the people?

P.S. Van: Thanks for the Ramirez cartoon. I posted it along with Senator Reids' video "we killed the patriot act." At the same time he's complaining that Vegas doesn't get enough help to keep it safe... Maybe we should send Child out there to nab those wrascally terrorists!

Let's see:

Republican-dominated Legislative branch relaxed the FISA warrant standards, providing 72-hour emergency warrants.

Inexplicably, our Dear Leader decides to circumvent those Republican-crafted warrant standards.

Soon, a bi-partisan clamor ensues over the President's action.

Where's the power grab by the Republican-led legislative branch, again?

Better yet, for the sake of argument, what exactly would constitute an example of Bush circumventing judicial oversight? Or, alternatively, would you trust President Hilary to act as Shrub is in this case?

Prima facie the executive branch is not "applying" the law in this case, they are defying the law and making their own (a.k.a dictatorship).

"to the extent that the "FISA wall" issue was problematic. . . it was remedied when the Patriot Act brought down the "wall" shortly after 9-11"

The same Patriot Act Harry Reid bragged about "killing."

See, childish, this is why no one takes you guys on the left seriously on National Security. Because you guys aren't out there proposing better solutions to make the country safer and stronger. No, all you guys are doing is coming up with black helicopter paranoid crap about "fascism" and Bush being Hitler, and Bush "spying on Americans" (instead of the slightly more accurate "spying on Americans who are making phone calls to al Qaeda.") 60 - 70% of the public recognize your paranoid bullshit for what it is.

If you guys really cared about protecting the US from Terrorism, you'd come up with a plan and say, "This is how we could do it better." But that's not what you guys are doing. You are running around making up paranoid conspiracy theories, accusing Bush of causing tsumanis and hurricanes and blowing up coal mines. If you wanted America to be a safer, better place, you'd put out a plan for achieving that. But all you guys care about is power, and that's why you can't do anything but bitch and whine about the people --- like the president --- who are at least trying to do something to make this a better, safer country.

For the record, you brought up Hitler and fascism, not me. You brought up conspiracy, not me.

What I said, in response to your assertion that the legislative branch is trying to grab power from the Imperium Magisterium, was something very similar to the following:

Let's see:

Republican-dominated Legislative branch relaxed the FISA warrant standards, providing 72-hour emergency warrants.

Inexplicably, our Dear Leader decides to circumvent those Republican-crafted warrant standards.

Soon, a bi-partisan clamor ensues over the President's action.

Where's the power grab by the Republican-led legislative branch, again?

Better yet, for the sake of argument, what exactly would constitute an example of Bush circumventing judicial oversight? Or, alternatively, would you trust President Hilary to act as Shrub is in this case?

Prima facie, the executive branch is not "applying" the law in this case, they are defying the law and making their own (a.k.a dictatorship).

Not that I expect to be treated decently from Rethuglicans, but how about answering my question?

Oh, and I am not interested in wresting as much power for the executive branch as I can. You must be thinking of yourself and His Imperial Highness King George (who, as we all know, is above reproach and his motives are not to be questioned because he is led by God, not his corporate interests, and dissent constitutes a victory for the insurgents, blah, blah, blah)

would you trust President Hilary to act as Shrub

Considering that Hill's hubby used the IRS to intimidate political opponents, and considering that her hubby used warrantless wiretaps on anti-abortion clergy and businesses (completely unrelated to terrorism), I'd have to answer "No, I wouldn't trust that Marxist bitch as far as I could throw her."

Fortunately, she'll become President the day Ted Kennedy stops drinking and her hubby stops diddling interns.

Since when does a Clinton care about obeying the law anyway?

And this 'Dear Leader' crap is childish bullshit. I alone have given Bush more criticism about spending, domestic policy, and border neglect than all the left-wing moonbats on this forum combined have ever given democrats. Other conservatives are just as critical. The differences are three-fold: 1) Our criticisms are based on substantive policy differences, not paranoid Michael Moore delusions, 2) We oppose Bush policies where we think they are bad for America and suggest alternatives, we don't go into conniption fits and claim every place where Bush disagrees with us is evidence of incoming fascism, 3) We debate by discussing the merits and problems of each policy based on facts and reason, not childish namecalling.

I missed the part where you answered my question.

I missed the part where you explained how this latest Bush scandal is actually a power grab by the legislative branch rather than the obvious overextension by the executive branch. Wonder why that is?

(childish namecalling: like "dipshit"?)

As for policies that are bad for America--this latest dance on our Constituion by His Eminence is yet another.

You have yet to explain how he is above the law he is sworn to uphold.

You have yet to legally and ethically justify his spying on Americans.

You have yet to debate the merits of the latest policy of spying on Americans.

Fact: FISA was NOT an obstacle to intelligence gathering.

Fact: Domestic spying is un Constitutional

Fact: Bush bypassed the law.

Fact: Congress did NOT approve.

Fact: The Justive department did NOT approve.

Fact: AUMF does not give Shrub the authority.

Fact: Presidents do NOT have the power to violate the law, even in war-time (which we are not in presently--AUMF is not a Congressional declaration of war)

Rightwingers (such as yourself) are letting him get away with it. Based on previous posts, your agenda is more executive power, not preserving the democratic balance essential to our democracy.

Paranoia aside, the facts point to a violation of the law, one which you would not let any other President get a way with.

Enough of your special pleading.

I still don't get how spying on AQ phone calls coming into this country is against the law. And if it is, let us please change the law.