@engineer,
engineer wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I think history will be much kinder to the current administration than are those who assume that it is doing terribly wrong things in violation of the privacy and rights of the citizens. If I were President in the wake of 9/11, I would see that my #1 responsibility was that there not be another. I would see it as my first priority that people not be blown up on airplanes or trains or in crowded auditoriums or market places or while at work in large office buildings. And I would use every resource at my disposal to keep the people safe so that they could be at minimal risk as they move around the country conducting their lives normally. There are still a lot of bad people out there who will take that freedom away from us at their earliest opportunity.
If I were President after 9/11, I would see that my first responsibility is to uphold the Constitution of the United States against those who would use such a heinous event to push their own agendas. There are a lot of bad people out there who will take our freedom away from us at their earliest opportunity. Unfortunately, some of them are domestic. They hate that our freedoms put checks on their powers, that the courts prevent them from doing what they want when they want to and that our laws prevent their unfettered access to the plethora of information available on every American. They feel that their good intentions trump my rights. As President, I would strive with every tool at my disposal to provide as much safety as possible without compromising all the benefits we derive from a free society. I would not promise Americans absolute security in return for surrendering their freedoms because those freedoms are worth the risk. Those freedoms were obtained at a high cost, and any President who gives them over lightly will not be remembered well in history.
I would not take away Constitutionally protected freedoms, except in extreme emergency, to provide any form of security, but I do not believe the President has done that. I have not lost a single right that I previously possesed as a result of anything that President Bush has done, said, ordered, or accomplished in the areas of national security. I don't know anybody else who has lost any rights either. I do chaff sometimes to be told whether I may or may not smoke on my own property, what kind of automobile I will be allowed choice to have, what kinds of light bulbs will be available to me etc. etc. etc., but so far as my unalienable rights I have seen that the President has done nothing but protect those on my behalf.
The Presidential oath states only that the President will uphold and defend the Cosntitution of the United States. But the Constitution also makes the President Command in Chief of the Armed Forces who take the following oaths depending on whether they are enlisted men or officers:
Quote: The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
FDR used extraordinary means to protect the people in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor and President Bush has used extraordinary means (actually less radical) to protect the people in the wake of 9/11.
I do not approve of anybody, especially elected officials, blatantly violating the law. Often, however, ideology comes up with different criteria for interpreting the law. Again, I think history will be kind to George W. Bush for his role in protecting the American people in dangerous times, and I think he will have done it without taking away the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution.
