Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Simple,
Go look at the old abuzz archives,and look up any reports of complaints then.
You will find that there are no complaints about it from the dems when Clinton did it.

Well, for one thing, there are differences between the cited executive orders (Clinton and Carter you posted) and the one we're talking about. You can see the Americans spying on Americans thread for details.

But it's only partisan republicans who bring up those previous presidential actions in an attempt to say that this one is ok. Many conservatives are not ok with this, which doesn't surprise me. The fact that you and the other Bushophiles here are for it, does.

Ticomaya wrote:

I don't know about the rest of you (referring to the Bush Supporters), but I think this lastest matter shows quite clearly that the Democratic Party is not ready to handle the reigns of national security, and won't be any time soon.

You say that as if you believe that only democrats are concerned about this.

Richard A. Posner

Our Domestic Intelligence Crisis

More on Posner


From Marty Lederman:


What's remarkable about Posner's Op-Ed is that his whole point is that the FISA law on this presently is (in his view) woefully inadequate to the task. He never even mentions the serious implication of this point, which is that, if he is right that FISA currently prohibits this -- and he is right -- then the Administration's data mining for the past four years has been a violation of criminal law. (No specious suggestions from Posner, who knows better, that this was authorized by the AUMF: He's forthright that the law needs to be amended.)

Posner may be right that current law is too restrictive. Congress should have that debate. But isn't it troubling that an esteemed federal judge seems so indifferent to the fact that, in the meantime -- before the Nation and the Congress have had the opportunity to debate Posner's proposal -- the Nation's Chief Executive is systematically authorizing criminal felonies?

This is the way Posner characterizes what's been happening: "The Defense Department is rushing to fill [the] gaps." I suppose that's one way of putting it. (I can imagine lawyers for criminal defendants with appeals to Posner's court: "Your honor, as you've written, this criminal restriction is very unwise and needs amending. My client was merely rushing to fill the statutory gap.")

Here's the most chilling line in Posner's column, taking euphemism to a new level: "It is no surprise that gaps in domestic intelligence are being filled by ad hoc initiatives." That's Posner's kinder, gentler way of saying "It is no surprise that current federal laws, which unwisely criminalize this conduct, are being circumvented by the President's authorization to commit felonies."

Ticomaya wrote:

I don't know about the rest of you (referring to the Bush Supporters), but I think this lastest matter shows quite clearly that the Democratic Party is not ready to handle the reigns of national security, and won't be any time soon.

Amen to that. And I hope the American public is paying attention.

FreeDuck wrote:

According to the informative piece posted by Bill Clinton's associate attorney general above, those previous presidential actions are quite pertinent to the present one, and the present action is being misrepresented by those on the left. You want to say that he is saying this from a partisan perspective?

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where he talked about the previous executive orders that you posted earlier.

How about this thread? Or the big thread?

Posner might be a judge in our country, but he doesn't understand the laws or the application of laws, but more importantly doesn't understand the 4th Amendment to our Constitution. Why is he a judge?

Foxfyre wrote:

How about this thread? Or the big thread?

Where in this thread do you see liberals who a) agree that the Clinton administration had American citizens wiretapped without a warrant, and b) defended the practice, or said they had no complaints about it when it happened? That was mysteryman's claim. If you say the present thread supports it, please link to posts that show complacency toward wiretapping by the Clinton administration without a warrant.

I'm not suggesting there are no Republicans concerned, nor am I suggesting all Democrats are. But overriding the question of whether there should be "concern," is the question of whether the action is appropriate, justified, and/or needed in our fight against terrorism.

The present situation isn't good for your side.

Well, I disagree, blatham. I think when push comes to shove, the analysis will have to be which party will do a better job with national security, and there is no doubt about which party that is.

Looking at Cyclops post, I am reminded that I have been involved in a discussion at another site on a subject that prompted the question: "What Constitutional, legal, or unalienable right was being violated."

The leftie's response was: "Something can be unconstitutional without involving individual rights." He honestly thought that was responsive to the issue.

It must be something in the water. I guess.