George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them

Even you are right and it's the Democrats' fault that George Bush failed to get the warrants from the secret court and thus spied on Americans without court oversight, does it make what he did legal/ constitutional?

It's legal to wiretap Americans without a warrant?Since when?I am not claiming that we shouldn't wiretap. To the contrary, I think it's quite important to have the ability to do so.But when we start wiretapping citizens without judicial oversight, that is unconstitutional.Our right to be free from our government secretly eavesdropping upon our private phone conversations unless they have shown to a court that there is good reason to do so is a large part of what makes the American Constitution and Bill of Rights two the most amazing freedom-protecting documents in the all of history.How dare Bush decide he doesn't need judicial oversight to spy on us?How dare he think he's above the constitution?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-01-2006 07:20 PM

quote:

---

I don't know what is so hard to understand about this. If you are talking to Al Qeada, we want to know about it.

---

And I think we should know about people doing this.But you need to get a warrant from a judge so there is a record of you doing it, and that there is a record that you showed that there was just cause for you to do that.The fact that the president isn't above getting a warrant is what makes us different from most of the governments we say we are different from.Oh, and habeas corpus too, except Americans don't have that right anymore, either.

quote:

---

A Democrat is president. Al Qeada calls someone in the US. I still want that President's Intel to know about it.

---

You are thinking of this too narrowly, tal.You are thinking of the situation and not the power.Let's pretend that Hillary Clinton became president.Do you want her to have the power to wiretap anyone, for any reason, without any record of it or any approval required from any court?Bush has declared that he has the power to do this, as the President, whenever he judges it necessary.I get that you trust his integrity 100%, but what if a president came along that you didn't trust? Do you still think it's ok for an untrustworthy president to be able to secretly wiretap Americans for any reason without any judicial oversight?

quote:

---

You guys complain that Bush didn't connect the dots for 911. Now you complain when we try to connect the dots.

---

We've all said the following multiple times, but I'll say it again, because you apparently are having trouble remembering that we said it.WE WANT YOU TO CONNECT THE DOTS.
WE WANT YOU TO SPY ON AL QAIDA.
WE WANT YOU TO SPY ON AMERICANS IN CONTACT WITH AL QAIDA.But, if you are going to spy on Americans, you need to get a warrant so there is judicial oversight and that there is a record that you have done it and there was just cause for you to do so.Otherwise, it is illegal and unconstitutional.My question is, if Bush decided to not get warrants for some of the spying he did, was that because he spied on people without probable cause?If he had the warrant, he'd be able to show that he was justified in spying, but because he didn't get it, we have no way of knowing if he abused the ability to spy.No president is above the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, tal.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-02-2006 07:22 AM

quote:

---

But let's put that aside for a second, I'm curious about what you feel would be illegal for Bush to do at this point. Is there anything he could do, or be caught doing, that is a violation of law or of the Constitution?

---

Maybe lying about a blowjob?

My semen-stained dress is red.Is that OK?

rotflmao*then shaking my head sadly at the truth of it*