Posted on 05/09/2006 6:17:53 AM PDT by aculeus
IN A BOLD AND CONTROVERSIAL DECISION, the president authorized a program for the surveillance of communications within the United States, seeking to prevent acts of domestic sabotage and espionage. In so doing, he ignored a statute that possibly forbade such activity, even though high-profile federal judges had affirmed the statute's validity. The president sought statutory amendments allowing this surveillance but, when no such legislation was forthcoming, he continued the program nonetheless. And when Congress demanded that he disclose details of the surveillance program, the attorney general said, in no uncertain terms, that it would get nothing of the sort.
In short, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt charted a bold course in defending the nation's security in 1940, when he did all of these things.
It is worth remembering FDR's example as the debate over the NSA's warrantless surveillance continues to heat up. After a few months' lull, it seems that the issue is again creeping into the headlines. On April 27, for example, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter convened a press conference demanding that President Bush disclose the details of the NSA's surveillance program, and threatening to suspend the program's funding.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Pres. Bush should dare Specter to cut funding and note responsibility for future terrorist attacks then falls on those in congress who do so.
Democrats like FDR and Arlen Spector can do whatever they want. It's Republicans who can be called to account for their actions.
Dictatorship? You joined this morning, to ladle out a dollop of hyperbole?
Has somebody disclosed classified information to you regarding the nature of the NSA operations? Because either you have information that has been withheld from the public or else you are making up stories about a "dragnet of domestic communications". btw, welcome to FR.
"Dictatorship" may be hyperbole, but he's right that looking to FDR for inspiration is a pretty sad state of affairs. The man had nothing but contempt for the idea that the Constitution imposed any limitations on the power of the federal government.
Interesting 'interpretation' of this.
I read this as saying, "Look Libs, your very favorite Prez did exactly the same thing with no apologies, so impeaching Bush for this would be admitting that FDR should have been impeached".
And I would also say, this *is* a state of war.
Altho I don't understand why Bush doesn't just start getting a judge to sign off on warrants before they tap . . .
And you'd probably be right. Bill Clinton used to do this, finding some past President that got away with something he was being criticized for, and holding it up as an example.
If FDR's failures in his first two terms could simply be attributed to a lack of understanding, that could be forgiven. I fear you are selling him short.
He understood very well how to manipulate the economic situation so as to garner more votes for he and the Democrats.
Denial to some with horn of plenty to others was not ignorance. It was the worst type of manipulation for political gain.
Wire taps?
That is J. Edgar Hoover technology in the Bill Gates world.
They are not just listening in on occassional phone calls, they are monitoring cell phones and other more modern methods of communication. You simply cannot get "wire taps" on throw away cell phones.
Actually, for by far most of our country's engagements, this has been the norm.
What is rare is the 'clean war', WWII style, where everyone in the world agrees with us and is on board with the politics of the situation.
Heck, even in WWII, the politics between the allies was a *significant* issue.
Ask youself what a Democrat who would model themselves after FDR would do with the powers Bush claims to have.
I was under the impression that Clinton already did. And yes, crying 'dictatorship' does sound like alarmist hyperbole.
From my understanding of what you believe, I think you're simply mistaken. Sorry!
Showing political hypocracy by pointing out where your critics approved of the exact same things you are doing in someone else has always and will always be standard 'damage control' procedure, wouldn't you agree?
BTTT
I meant that as a generic term for 'listening in on private calls' -- sorry if that was confusing!
It has, and the end result is to drive principle down to the lowest common denominator.
Understood.
But how do you get permission to listen in on calls from an as yet unknown number?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.