An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Bush’s Warrantless Domestic Spying Loses A Conservative
William Safire isn’t happy. Will more Republicans, particularly libertarian Republicans, take a similar stance?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “Bush’s Warrantless Domestic Spying Loses A Conservative”
Safire is a shameless RINO who has had it in for Bush from the beginning. He became a tired act years ago — his obsession with “privacy rights” borders on the paranoid.
LOL.
You’re a nut DougJ.
Doug: You and others are the ones who were quoting Satire ad nauseum on a HOST of issues since the Clinton years and all during the Bush term. But now that he has broken with Bush on an issue of conscience you call him a RINO. It’s clear you will go along with anything at all that The Leader Of Your Party says needs to be done. Safire is a thinking patriot.
When have I ever quoted William Safire? Go back and read my comments and you’ll see not one mention of him prior to this.
Hey y’all,
Its called the 4th amendment. Read it up in the Bill of Rights. Bush wiretapped on hundreds of americans without getting warants!
Bush walked all over and then spat some more at the constitution, “the highest law in the land”. For those who don’t know what i’m talking about, READ a civics book or get a copy of the constitution.
STOP yaking about bush being in the right. He is not right. The reason? Its called FISA court, where the NSA, CIA, etc. can get wiretapps from a judge in minutes.
The government is not as pure as you think for those who have a short memory. Remember Hoover spying on Martin Luther King jr, thinking he was a communist? Waco, or even Ruby Ridge where the FBI shot a 10 year old boy in the back, plus killing a 20 something old mother including a 10 month old baby in that mothers arms?
For those of you scoffing at me, google rubyridge, ok?
as for me, i used to be a conservative, now i am a democrat because Bush has screwed up his priorities regarding whats legal and whats not. He is President, not king.
- a angry voter
I’ve voted for Republicans and could do so again if it looks as if the party is standing up to this. But the majority of the party goes along with whatever he says, discarding past principles. So I’ll either not vote or, more likely, cast protest votes for Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008. When I read some of the comments Republicans make on this site and others there is no way I can support party like this. I have a choice between a scary choice and a not perfect and in some ways incompetent choice. But after Michael Brown we know that incompetence doesn’t only have a D in front of it. I’m begin force to vote Democratic in 2006 and 2008 and I don’t like it but it’s clear many in the Republican party don’t care about people like me.
Sorry for defending a nut, Disenfranchised (what is this, 1965?), but DougJ is right – Safire hasn’t said anything he hasn’t been saying for years. Ditto for Bob Barr and the other privacy hawks on the right. Joe’s headline is (unintentionally) misleading. Safire was also referring to a situation that lost any shred of support two decades ago, and created the dysfunctional arrangement that is the FISA court. Read the latest issue of the Weekly Standard (www.weeklystandard.com) about the shortcomings of this court. Then maybe we can have an intelligent debate on this issue in the comments. But it would be nice if the detractors on this reasonably disturbing spying news actually knew the court’s history and the impetus for going around it.
What I don’t get about complying with the FISA law, is that you have 72 hours (3 days) afterward to do so. Remember that this is a prez who broke one of his all too frequent vacations in Crawford, flew up to Washington in the middle of a Sunday night to meet his buddies, like Frist etc., and signed a new legislature for the Terry Shivo. When it comes to national security, you mean to tell me that there’s a judge somewhere on this special court that would the stones NOT to answer the president’s calls, regardless of what time of day?
Let’s for a moment give this administration the benefit of the doubt, and assume everyone monitored was in the interest of national security. So, the big question looming in the middle of the room is, why, if given 3 days afterward, if the prez has 24/7 access to a special group of judges, who historically have only turned turn something like 4 out of over ten thousand requests, why not just follow the law?
What I don’t get about complying with the FISA law, is that you have 72 hours (3 days) afterward to do so.
A lot can happen in 72 hours. It’s simply too long to have to wait.
DougJ–
Please reread Jim’s post. The 72 hours allows for compliance with the law WITHOUT having to wait. No waiting necessary. Go ahead an wiretap. The law provides for 72 hours after the wiretapping begins to obtain the warrant.
Hey Greg, are you trying to argue that Safire isn’t a conservative?
You post clearly demonstrates that your reasoning as to why Joe’s title is misleading is severly flawed.
You do realize that conservatives agree with a philosophy, or certain policies; not just with whatever Bush says. In fact, you probably aren’t a conservative if you agree with whatever Bush says–that makes you a Republican.
You don’t need to blindly follow the Republican party to be considered a conservative.
Oh but wait, 9/11 changed that too! I forgot that they are either with ya, or against ya.
*Your post
ASO — 72 hours is just too long to have to wait. Period.
FISA allows the President to order a wiretap whenever he chooses. FISA then requires that a warrant be acquired within 72 hours AFTER the wiretap begins. There is no waiting required.
To put it another way, FISA allows the President to put a wiretap credit card so long as the bill (the warrant) is paid within 72 hours.