Never mind that the NYT :cough: reporter has written a book on the same subject that is set to be released in a few weeks. That had nothing to do with the timing of the story, right?
So now you want to blame the exposure of Bush’s illegal actions on free market capitalism?
I don’t see how that mitigates the offenses. Could you please explain?
Well then it’s perfectly fair to blame the year long cover-up on blatant politics, isn’t it. But then, since Bush was so kind as to confirm ALL of it yesterday, what can I say, except that whatever the motivations may have been, what Bush is doing is illegal, unconstitutional, immoral and unethical. No one will change my mind one iota.
By the way, the Constitution appears to have been quietly revoked, in its entirety.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6912250&postcount=123
“I’m pretty sure that’s an argument no one has ever made before,” Yoo, 38, said recently with evident pride. Most people, he said, “say the world’s too dangerous and the Constitution’s obsolete.”
Well, I thought that it would be helpful because I am in general a curious fellow and do like to see where other folks are coming from, especially in cases where there seems to be such a vast difference in or perception of the Good.
That said, I have to admit that your post has be a bit flustered and buggy eyed. If I am reading you correctly the mere fact that some government can listen to my phone calls makes it ok for any government to do so? The fact that some random dude can paw through my garbage makes it moral for the State to do so? Huh.
Is there no room in your philosophy for an obvious gut check? As in the notion that just because a creepy neighbor has the ability to make off with my garbage and paw through it doesn’t mean that it still isn’t creepy. And that if the State is doing the same thing it is not only creepy but (given the amount of force the state can bring to bear) dangerous. I mean, for heavens sake, using that logic there is nothing immoral in someone stealing my identity because I was careless with my shredding and threw away documents with personal identification.
I have to say, your brand of morality kind of freaks me out.
Yeah, I do. With regard to the first two bullet points I’m not really qualified to comment, although it seems like the people who are qualified to comment are at best split on the issue. I certainly don’t think it’s realistic to say that Bush could be impeached over this, and it would take a pretty low threshold for “evil” to say this crosses the line.
But is it immoral and un-American? Obviously that’s going to be a matter of opinion, since those are pretty subjective terms. A lot of people feel that our civil liberties are some of the most important benefits of being an American, and that the President has a moral obligation to respect them. Obviously, one has to draw the line somewhere, but the Bush administration seems to be consistently working to push that line towards a reduction of civil liberties and increased governmental powers. I think they’re harming America by doing so.
But more than that, what really gets to me is the secrecy of the Bush administration. In the case you mentioned about searching a person’s garbage, the evidence was introduced in court and the courts were then able to decide whether or not that evidence was admissible. There wasn’t, so far as I know, any effort to keep people from finding out that the police had searched through a person’s trash. Whereas the Bush admin seems to consistently try to keep anyone (either the American people or the other branches of government) from finding out about policies which they know would be controversial. I think the executive branch has an (ethical) obligation to maintain some level of transparency, so that the checks and balances in our system of government can come into play. Who’s to say that the Bush admin isn’t doing things far more objectionable than these wiretaps, that the media just hasn’t found out about yet?
On top of that, I don’t really think the Bush admin believes that making public the fact that they’re doing these wiretaps hurts the war on terror. I mean, it’s not as if terrorists aren’t already aware of the possibility that their phones could be tapped. The only difference is now they’re being tapped without warrants. So realistically, I think it a lot more likely that the members of the Bush admin simply didn’t think that Congress would go along with this plan, so instead they kept it all secret and used “national security” as an excuse. I’m sure some will disagree that this is what happened, but I think that’s a bit naive.
So basically, you have an administration that is consistently working to reduce Americans’ civil liberties, and which does so in secret to try to prevent those who have the authority to stop it from having the chance to exercise that authority. And then they lie and say they had to keep it secret to avoid compromising their investigations, when it’s much more likely they simply figured that was the only way they could get away with it. That’s dishonest, it’s damaging to our civil liberties (far more so through the precedent it sets than simply through the act itself), it and it undermines people’s faith in our government to protect our freedoms. (As I said, who’s to say what other controversial violations of civil liberties simply haven’t come to light yet.) I think at the very least it’s a pretty dispicable position for the President to take, and while I can see that it’s ultimately a matter of opinion, I certainly don’t think calling it immoral is unreasonable. I’d say the President has a moral obligation to care a hell of a lot more about our civil liberties than he obviously does.
By the way, Bricker, I appreciate you taking the time to post in threads like this one, in spite of the inevitable pile-on. Reading an articulate argument for views that I generally don’t agree with is a lot more interesting than just reading a million “Bush sucks” comments.
If it truly was such a big story, i.e., illegal actions by the President, why did they wait for a year to publish it? (FTR, I’m not buying the argument that the NYT sat on it in deference to the Bush Administration, of all things.) Instead, it gets to press a couple of weeks before the author is releasing a book??? How convenient for him. If that makes me cynical, oh well.
National security, terrror, oh the usual things. It’s OK to be cynical, that’s a healthy thing. But let’s keep on thing in mind - Bush clearly stated that it WAS happening. I doubt he would have admitted this, unless he had to. As to his demeanor during the speech, that depends on who you ask. Some say it was defiance, others say he was running scared. You see, this time he can’t claim he didn’t know, or that someone else did it. He reminded me of a two year old who gets caught with a hand in the cookie jar. They get mad because they got caught. They deny, then they evade, and then they have a tantrum. That’s what happens when a spoiled rich brat becomes president. Accountability is a totally new concept for him, and he hates it 
For clarification I wasn’t questioning the function of the NSA. My basic questions were 1) why skirt the law when a lawful FISA warrant would serve the same end; and 2) exactly why should President Bush be bound by his predecessors’ Executive Orders?
Of course you subsequently addressed (2), SteveG1.
To begin with, since (at least) Vietnam there has been clear distinction between declared (“perfect”) and undeclared (“imperfect”) wars. Indeed one of the prime reasons for passing the War Powers Resolution, at the height of the Vietnam “War”, was the codification of this distinction. The War Powers Resolution (often mistakenly conflated with the War Powers Act, which is something else entirely and irrelevant to this discussion) requires different levels of congressional oversight dependant on the grounds for use of force: “:a declaration of war”; “specific statutory authorization”; or “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
In particular, the War Powers Resolution addresses Congressional authorization of force “in the absence of a declaration of war.”
So what were the grounds for force in Iraq? A declaration of war? Specific statutory authorization? National emergency? Or something else? Let’s look at the Iraq Resolution:
Also, The Iraq Resolution mandated stringent requirements upon the President pursuant to “specific statutory authorization” to report to Congress every 60 days, requirements that would be inapplicable if “a declaration of war” were in effect.
Thankfully, this is all very well understood in the halls of Congress. For example, when Congress authorized use-of-force in the Iraq Liberation Act, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher made this much clear:
So in sum, an inchoate sense that Congressional authority for use of force in Iraq somehow amounts to “a declaration of war by the Congress” “in the absence of a declaration of war” is, well, a bit daft.
- I have no idea why. It makes no sense, if everything was authorized by law. The only reason I can imagine is, “someone” suspected that the way it was done, was not legal. It hinges around the Warrants.
- He can issue a new executive order at any time, but he is still bound by the law. As I said earlier.
Or that they went to press on the eve of the vote to renew the PATRIOT Act…
I think you have just stated the most likely reason. There has been a shake-up here and there in the media. Novak is leaving “wherever he works now”. Judith Wilson is leaving “wherever she works now”. It could be (making a lot of loose assumptions) that the media was not happy about being “burned” by the administration, discredited, made to play shill, and then being hung out to dry, being pushed around and jerked around, and then (according to the Times) being asked (or ordered?) not to publish last year. What better way to get revenge, than to publish the story when it will do the most damage to those who have made you angry?
A book coming out may be a reason, but a weak one. It makes a few dollars for the author, but not for the newspaper. However, a news article can boost sales of both the paper and the book into the stratosphere, and draw blood from your “hated foes”. It puts the administration’s beloved Patriot Act in jeopardy.
It’s revenge.
“Revenge is a dish best served cold” - Shakespeare
So by your estimation, the New York Times, the alleged Paper of Record, is engaging in petty revenge. Lovely. I’ll have to remember this thread the next time the subject of “media bias” is raised.
It’s not petty revenge, it’s righteous revenge…and political bias has nothing to do with it. They’re not doing it because Bush is a Republican, they’re doing it because he fucked them.
I have to disagree. They are doing it for the buck. Anything posted on the front page is put there to sell papers.
See, now, when you claim that the NYT is “rightgeous” about anything, you’ve lost the argument.
Aren’t they supposed to be reporting the news, “righteous” or not aside?
Rightousness aside, isn’t the president supposed to be obeying the laws, and protecting our civil liberties?
This bitching about the NY Times is nothing but a tu quoque intended to obscure Mr. Bush’s wrongdoing.
He is, and he has. There is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.
This logic is so ill-considered, I am amazed at how often it is employed.
An innocent man has much more to fear from unrestrained government than a guilty man. The worst that can happen to a guilty man is that he gets what he deserves. But when government is not subject to restraint, the innocent man risks his liberty when he is unjustly accused. A government of laws can commit no greater injustice than the prosecution of an innocent man. Therefore, it is the duty of innocent men everywhere to voice their objections when government oversteps its authority and infringes on the liberty of all men, guilty or innocent.