# The Bush Administration Trashes Civil Liberties of Americans

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [December 16, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856 "2005-12-16T03:02:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 22

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/421 "2005-12-24T00:15:48Z")

</div>

> [@SteveG1](#):
>
> But is it a fabrication if I have the CITES? I did provide cites after all. What I used as illustration/evidence cane from the news. It didn’t come out of the blue.

> [@Daschle](#):
>
> I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance …

Question: do you believe that this statement has ANY legal significance? In other words, if a court is deciding what the words of a statute mean, would they rely in any way on such a statement?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/422 "2005-12-24T01:18:36Z")

</div>

> [@SteveG1](#):
>
> But is it a fabrication if I have the CITES?

The issue in question, though, was not the intent of any particular law. It was your assertion, above, that \*\*Bricker \*\*and \*\*Bush \*\*do not recognize the authority of the SCOTUS to interpret the constution (see your post #402).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/423 "2005-12-24T03:25:27Z")

</div>

Question: **Bricker** , do you intend ever to address any of the thorough rebuttals of any of your, um, remarkable claims here, or simply ignore them and press ahead, blinkers on and fingers in ears and la-la-la-ing away, in true **december** style?

Try summing up for us, in declaratory statements, exactly what case you have left. Don’t worry; it won’t take long.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856.md?page=21)