America... Spying on Americans

It is not "partisan hysteria." Fear is not a justification to break the laws of this land. Nor is fear a justification to preemptively attack another sovereign nation. Fear really doesn't excuse taking away our Constitutional rights.

Bark away at any commentary that you smell as pro-Bush, but you might consider reflecting upon the issues as a human rather than as a leftist doberman.

It is partisan hysteria to refuse to acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that Bush acted in good faith.

Given that possibility, impeachment is not the clear next step.

The investigation into this is a smokescreen and the American people should not have to rely on faith that the president will not abuse his powers, that is why we have checks and balances, ideally.

It is partisan hysteria to refuse to acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that Bush acted in good faith.

It has yet to be discovered if the president put himself above the law. There is some speculation he has, there is speculation he hasn't.

It has yet to be discovered if the president put himself above the law. There is some speculation he has, there is speculation he hasn't.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

It is partisan hysteria to refuse to acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that Bush acted in good faith.

Red herring. Acting in good faith does not put anyone above the law, including the president.

McGentrix wrote:

It has yet to be discovered if the president put himself above the law. There is some speculation he has, there is speculation he hasn't.

"It has yet to be discovered", and he insists it would be illegal to reveal that discovery to the public if somebody made it. Convenient, isn't it?

Partisans are also quick to dismiss valid concerns as "partisan" and an "attack on the president", which is equally or maybe even more dangerous.

True, some are.

The fact that existing law was not followed is not in dispute -- he has admitted it. The only question is whether the president has Constitutional authority to disregard the law.

It's a big question though, isn't it?

PRINT THIS ARTICLE
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE
WRITE TO THE EDITORS
TAKE ACTION NOW
SUBSCRIBE TO THE NATION
When the New York Times revealed that George W. Bush had ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the foreign calls of American citizens without seeking court permission, as is indisputably required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, he faced a decision. Would he deny the practice, or would he admit it? He admitted it. But instead of expressing regret, he took full ownership of the deed, stating that his order had been entirely justified, that he had in fact renewed it thirty times, that he would continue to renew it and--going even more boldly on the offensive--that those who had made his law-breaking known had committed a "shameful act." As justification, he offered two arguments, one derisory, the other deeply alarming. The derisory one was that Congress, by authorizing him to use force after September 11, had authorized him to suspend FISA, although that law is unmentioned in the resolution. Thus has Bush informed the members of a supposedly co-equal branch of government of what, unbeknownst to themselves, they were thinking when they cast their vote. The alarming argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses "inherent" authority to suspend laws in wartime. But if he can suspend FISA at his whim and in secret, then what law can he not suspend? What need is there, for example, to pass or not pass the Patriot Act if any or all of its provisions can be secretly exceeded by the President?

Bush's choice marks a watershed in the evolution of his Administration. Previously when it was caught engaging in disgraceful, illegal or merely mistaken or incompetent behavior, he would simply deny it. "We have found the weapons of mass destruction!" "We do not torture!" However, further developments in the torture matter revealed a shift. Even as he denied the existence of torture, he and his officials began to defend his right to order it. His Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, refused at his confirmation hearings to state that the torture called waterboarding, in which someone is brought to the edge of drowning, was prohibited. Then when Senator John McCain sponsored a bill prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, Bush threatened to veto the legislation to which it was attached. It was only in the face of majority votes in both houses against such treatment that he retreated from his claim.

But in the wiretapping matter, he has so far exhibited no such vacillation. Secret law-breaking has been supplanted by brazen law-breaking. The difference is critical. If abuses of power are kept secret, there is still the possibility that, when exposed, they will be stopped. But if they are exposed and still permitted to continue, then every remedy has failed, and the abuse is permanently ratified. In this case, what will be ratified is a presidency that has risen above the law.

FreeDuck wrote:

The fact that existing law was not followed is not in dispute -- he has admitted it. The only question is whether the president has Constitutional authority to disregard the law.

It's a big question though, isn't it?