It doesn't matter whether the bureaucracy makes sense or not. The law is in place for a reason and Bush broke the law. If he wanted to do this legally, there are a number of ways he could have, but he chose to break the law. Are you kidding me? You admit that Bush has not only broken the law but admitted it and you STILL claim he has an "upright purpose?" You are truly delusional. So if I were to grow mar1juana and use the profits to set up anti-drug programs for kids, I should get a pass because I have an "upright purpose," right?
Arguments with giddy go in circles, and circles, and circles, and... At least T_J and texxx are funny if you read their posts as a caricature of right-wing talking points, kind of like listening to Bill Walton as a color man for NBA games.
Did I imagine Gandhi? Did he break the law? Did he have an upright purpose. You lack imagination in your bulldozing toward your point... you don't even try to understand another point of view.
When did Gandhi break the law? I remember hunger strikes and that kind of thing from history classes...
Oh yeah? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act FISA court Main article: United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and enabled it to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal police agencies (primarily the F.B.I.) against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the U.S. The court is located within Department of Justice. The court is staffed by eleven judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States to serve seven year terms. Proceedings before the FISA court are ex parte and non-adversarial. The court hears evidence presented solely by the Department of Justice. There is no provision for a release of information regarding such hearings, or for the record of information actually collected. Main article: United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Denials of FISA applications by the FISC may be appealed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. The Court of Review is a three judge panel. Since its creation, the court has only come into session once in 2002.
I try, I just can't imagine how someone would support a man who is supposed to be in charge with upholding all of the laws of the land and who admits to breaking one of those laws. The only thing that explains it to me is blind partisanship. You have admitted that you have blind trust in Bush, so I guess that is what is happening.
Sure thing, Mr. "I care about PROTECTING AMERICANS while you guys squabble over something petty like illegal wiretaps".
OK, judges and DOJ lawyers, presumably those with security clearance. None of this makes your "theory" any less preposterous.
No, I use it in cases when it seems appropriate, like this one. Let's recap... 1. Bush says that they get warrants before every wiretap as is required by law. 2. A story breaks in which it comes to light that this isn't the case. 3. Bush admits to his previous lie. Now, at this point, anyone reasonable would have at least a bit of distrust for a man who claimed one thing and then admitted that his previous claim was a lie. You continue to have full trust in the man even though there is a law in place which Bush has broken even though he has SWORN to uphold ALL of the laws of the land. "Blind partisanship," "blind faith," and "blind trust" seem pretty appropriate given that you have closed your eyes to the facts in favor of a fanciful "theory" in which someone in the DOJ or on the FISA court is giving information to al Qaeda.
One can't praise Gandhi enough. He was arrested many times, served years in prison, and ultimately triumphed, although the partition of India was something he was ardently against. Like Lincoln, he was murdered at the very moment when his presence might have prevented enormous grief. For a quick overview of his life, check out this site: http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/Library/Libraryitem.cfm?libraryid=774 What I don't understand is, how is he related in any way to Bush and his policies? Bush has repeatedly done things that would have been abhorrent to Mahatma Gandhi. Sorry, giddy, but I don't get this comparison. Keep D&D Civil.
I didn't compare them. As I recall I was challenged to find an example of someone who had broken the law for an upright reason-- as I've supposed Bush is admitting to doing. Gandhi immediately came to mind.
Do we know <b>for a fact</b> that Bush knew this before he said it OR are you just conveniently attributing it to him as Commander in Chief? The quote (""Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.") contributed by jo mama doesn't even account for FISA wire-taps which can be gotten after the fact-- up to a year as we have learned. <b>I think this quote has been taken out of context and mis-applied (but then I am nothing but a Bush Apologist!</b>
he should have known and if he didnt than that is just further proof that bush is totally incompetent and not really much more than a puppet. its really not complicated. bush says in no uncertian terms that "a wiretap requires a court order". he doesnt say "wiretaps require a court order, except for FISA ones". he lied to us all.
What do you mean? How has that quote been taken out of context? Honest question giddy I'd really like to now how you separate the two? I mean really? How are these two different issues?
