Which is the more egregious affront to the US Constitution? Oops, the thread title lists Constituion as plural. I know there is only one... but with all those amendments to a perfect document.
If you can say an unborn child is not a human and feel good about it, I can say that a conversation with terrorists is not privileged and sacrosanct and feel <b>really</b> good about it.
The attack on YOUR bill of rights by rich, liberalistic, political hedons, who masquerade a concern about rights in vaquealistic manner, yet will spit on the paper at #2.
Giddy I'll try this again (hopefully without being called a traitor). No one here has any problem that I can see with wiretapping terrorists. The problems arise when you have an administration that circumvents the law (a law put in place for this very reason) and does not obtain the necessary warrants to conduct said wiretaps. It's really not that hard to understand.
This is kinda like the Vietnam veterans seeing a threat, and having to call washington, thousands of miles away to "assess" the correct action to take, and hoping the time allotment doesn't cost more lives. This is quantitative analysis that liberalistic folks like Mcnamara was great at, but the point is it doesn't work. I'm all for circumventing said "law", but if it is for the purpose of r****ding a realized threat, then I have no problem.
1. 1978 2. he never said he did and you know it. http://www.sethf.com/gore/ FISA, which was enacted in 1978, contains provisions that limit such surveillance to communications "exclusively between foreign powers," specifically stating that the president may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order only if there is "no substantial likelihood" that the communications of "a United States person" -- a U.S. citizen or anyone else legally in the United States -- will be intercepted. Such provisions do not allow for the Bush administration's authorization of domestic surveillance of communications between persons inside the United States and parties outside the country. FISA also allows the president and the attorney general to conduct surveillance without a court order for the purpose of gathering "foreign intelligence information" for "a period" no more than 15 days "following a declaration of war by the Congress." This provision does not permit Bush's conduct either, as he acknowledged that he had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since 2001, and said that the program is "reviewed approximately every 45 days." PS what do I win?
There is no court case holding that what the President did is illegal, and legal opinions are all over the board. It's an unsettled area of the law. By the way, I don't consider you a traitor because you think Bush acted illegally. I think you are a traitor because you want to reward those who have leaked classified info on this program. You can state that Bush's actions were illegal and still want those who leaked to be punished. I would disagree with that position, but I would not find it treasonous.
The following is a link which demonstrates judicial obligation for the President on what he has done concerning these protective means... http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/doj122205.pdf
Rest assured, the legal authority has been demonstrated and established. Please refer to the document before making ignorant contradictions...
That's why I qualified it with "illegally" and also qualified the abortion as "legal." That is where the question was really loaded, IMHO... and I gave your side the advantage. Isn't the legality a question apart from the affont to the Constitution since laws change much more frequently than does the Constitution? In other words when women were having illegal abortions, I didn't hear people screaming too much about the Constitutional rights of the aborted children-- and I still don't. Really, I'm not as dumb as you think I am; I'm just asking a direct question that allows for a direct answer-- implications aside!
Do you see what I'm driving at? BTW, I think you guys are over-doing the "traitor" thing. There is only a couple in here who pull out that card. You make it seem like all the loyal opposition do it. Just my .02. Further evidence that T_J is winning...
Giddyup; I think I understand what you are trying for but the problem is the wording of your poll. You say vs. Of course the first choice is a bigger affront since you've stated its illegal whereas the other one is Legal The Constitution isn't a person with feelings but a legal document. As the document establishing our court and law enforcement of course what is illegal is more of an affront than what isn't.
