Congress blasts Bush's surveillance of U.S. calls, e-mails

Miami Herald ^ | Dec. 17, 2005 | By: Ron Hutcheson and Frank Davies, Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel

[saganite]

I wonder why the public hasn't completely written off the Democratic party then. Under your scenario the public would have grown weary of their mudslinging long ago. It hasn't happened. I'm sick and tired of sitting back and taking it. Your play nice scenario doesn't work in the real world. That's the old country club Republican attitude. Go along to get along. It sucks.

[K-oneTexas]

I seem to remember in my history classes (or rather living through it) that Robert Kennedy as Attorney General "authorized" wiretaps against Martin Luther King. Did his brother, the sitting President, approve of this? Or was this a rogue act of a government employee? What statutes were in place then to allow such an act by government. Was this legal?

{See Factual Analysis: The Kennedy’s: Myth, Legend, or Reality}

If we question a sitting President (now) and the statutes should we not do our homework and see what precedent exists for 'spying' on American citizens when it has occurred previously. Do we look only at the President and his actions or should we also look to who released this information and why?

We should know not only if our government is perpetrating illegal acts but also when an accusation is made if it is true or if it is false. Also we have a right to know who leaked classified information (as is the case today) and if the individual(s) will be punished under our system of justice.

I think fair is fair and maybe this is a case of the "pot calling the kettle black". Well ....

[BikerNYC]

No, not at all.

Eavesdropping warrants are obtained ex parte, without the attendance of the target or the media, all the time. But the warrant is obtained through a known court and a known judge.

"Secret courts" have the ring of Stalinism, not the United States.

[saganite]

For all I know (I'm not a lawyer) that's exactly what happened. The article that said the warrants were obtained from a secret court may have meant that the proceedings were classified as you mentioned. The use of the words "secret court" may just be the reporters attempt to cast this in the worst possible light. The President has said the NSA obtained legal authority to do what it did, the decisions were reviewed by the Justice Dept, White House legal council and NSA legal council and in addition appropriate members of congress were kept in the loop on a frequent basis. I'm giving the President the benefit of the doubt. Knowing how the Democratic smear machine works I won't believe a thing they say unless they can get a ruling from the Supreme Court supporting their allegations.

[IronJack]

Under your scenario the public would have grown weary of their mudslinging long ago.

They probably have. But you're living in a world where reason applies. That is never true with Democrats, who made up their "minds" the day Bush was elected that he was a scoundrel. They've spent the last five years trying to prove it.

It hasn't happened.

No duh?

I'm sick and tired of sitting back and taking it.

Nobody's saying you should.

Your play nice scenario doesn't work in the real world.

"Play nice?" When did I urge that? I simply said that raging like idiots does nothing but tire an already weary public. The proper stance is calm, composed, and merciless.

That's the old country club Republican attitude.

What, sanity?

Go along to get along.

If the Democrats lie and we tell the truth, it hardly constitutes "going along."

It sucks.

This could be the defining moment for the Republicans. If they maintain an air of dignity and composure while the Democrats are imploding all around them, they will win the day. If they go monkey, they look as stupid as their critics.

[saganite]

This could be the defining moment for the Republicans.

You're right about that. The Republicans first shot was Specter calling the President a criminal. Followed shortly thereafter by McCain calling for an investigation. I don't see any other Republicans commenting yet.

[BikerNYC]

I guess the bottom line is if they got warrants, from whatever court, to intercept the conversations, they were legal; if they failed to get warrants, they were illegal.

[IranIsNext]

Guess foreigners need to stop posting at DU. LoL

[philman_36]

Bush trashed a conservative, Toomey, because Specter was his man. Well, now he can cope with his "man".
"The Bush says you should know your role and only raise a stink when you're told to!" /"The Rock" impersonation

[cynicom]

I am olde, always been a conservative, never a "party" member.

Blindly following any party to me is not doing your duty to yourself or your country.

If Bill Clinton were president, these same people that adore Bush would be screeching their lungs out.

If they wish to give away their freedom and liberty that is their right, just do not give mine away as I do not trust Bush or anyone else in BIG Government.