The good Senator Feingold is at it again, publicly using the word that the Democrats are scared to say but the Republicans loved to toss about during the Clinton administration (hint: sounds like a delicious Georgia stonefruit).
I am not a legal expert. I'm not even a law student (yet). I also don't have all of the facts, and I suspect Mr. Feingold also does not. And there is a good chance that, depending on how recent acts of Congress are interpreted, President Bush did nothing illegal when he authorized spying on American shores without a court order. But if he didn't do anything wrong, then he has nothing to be afraid of, right? If he's innocent then he should be happy to bring his case, with actual evidence this time Mr. President, to the American people so he can put this issue to rest and get on with his brush-clearing in Crawford or whatever it is that he does while his advisors decide what his policies are.
There are two things that make me think that he's not so innocent. The first is that whenever people ask him about the program, he talks about the results (which he also won't specify) instead of the actual legal footing that allows him to have such a program to begin with. Results are irrelevant - that's simply not how our laws work. Extenuating circumstances make the punishment less severe, they don't make the guilt go away. I also heard Mr. Cheney say earlier that Bush "clearly has the power" to make such authorizations. This isn't the first time I've heard this language from the Vice President. When someone uses the word 'clearly' instead of telling us WHY he thinks his point should be clear, it's usually because he has no actual evidence.
You want me to believe you? Give me something that actually has an judgeable truth value.
I want him to eavesdrop on me when I am having phone sex. The thought of him jacking off just... Mmmm, W.
by anna at March 15, 2006 7:54 AM
Clearly Double-Yuh did nothing illegal.
by Ex Crimson Guard NCO at March 15, 2006 2:24 PM
To get through the day without committing any felonies is a lofty goal indeed.
by anna at March 16, 2006 7:12 AM
Article II dude. Incident to the use of military force. Every court case evr has upheld that. The President fights wars, not judges or Congress.
It's the same reason Clinton could nab Aldrich Ames with no warrant.
And disclosing the program was TREASON on the part of whoever did so. I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it is too lenient.
Dammit, I WANT AL QAEDA PHONE CALLS TAPPED!!!!!!!!
by TallDave at April 25, 2006 3:31 PM
Article II defines the powers of the president. It does not grant him the power to ignore or override the remainder of the Constitution, nor does it give him the authority to ignore acts of Congress duly signed into law. This president has shown shocking disregard for the Constitution and laws of the United States, and has even attached meaningless 'signing statements' to bills that he signed into law basically saying that he will ignore the law when it is convenient for him to do so. No one, not even the president, can hide behind Classified status to protect their illegal activity. As a citizen of the USA, the leaker did the right thing. Treasonous activity on the part of the executive should be mercilessly saught out and disclosed. The President not only should be removed from office, but both he and his VP should be tried for their crimes and sent to prison. If you think that we can save this country by subverting our own freedoms, then I ask: why are we worth saving?
by Adam at April 25, 2006 10:58 PM