ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
It only took me reading the first 2 1/4 pages (the exec summary) to know this post wont get too many responses or honest discussion before it gets buried under 2 dozen meaningless threads. Too many brutally straightforward facts contrary to closely held opinion.
First, the argument against Bush wiretapping has to do with the establishment of the FISA court that was specifically designed to address the various Constitutional issues that existed beforehand. Thus, whatever happened by 1978 when the FISA court was established is not relevant.
Second, the Bush administration has yet to explain why they didn't bring their wiretapping program to the FISA court, which could have given them some sort of legitimacy. This court has a leak-free record and has authorized nearly every requested wiretap (upwards of 14,000 if I recall correctly).
Third, from what I've read, a large number of legal analysts believe the President had the right to wiretap immediately after 9/11, but not before and not after the Patriot Act was passed. What's the point of Congress negotiating with the President and passing legislation, if the President can do what he wants anyhow?
Fourth, it is a matter of concern that the President attempted to deceive the Congress with regard to this matter. His administration avoided providing requested documents and avoided keeping anyone outside of the executive branch informed of this convenient interpretation of the law.
Lastly, there is a legitimate issue here. There are those who believe the leader should be allowed to make law, but for the most part they live in places like Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Saudi Arabia, though they can also be found among the sycophants of the President.
P.S. I only read the Executive Summary of the letter.