Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senator: Bush's spying raises concerns (Brownback-RINO?)
Lawrence Journal-World ^ | December 24, 2005 | Scott Rothschild

Posted on 01/07/2006 4:34:58 AM PST by balch3

Topeka — U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., on Friday said the Bush administration needed to answer questions about spying on Americans without court authorization.

And Brownback said he disagreed with the administration’s legal rationale, which he said could hamper future presidents during war.

“There are questions that should be examined at this point in time,” Brownback said during a news conference.

(Excerpt) Read more at 2.ljworld.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Kansas; Unclassified; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; brownback; bush; nsa; sambrownback; spying; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last
This is from two weeks ago, but I haven't seen it posted anywhere, and I was surprised to hear such comments from Brownback. Why is he going off the reservation on this?
1 posted on 01/07/2006 4:35:01 AM PST by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: balch3
Why is he going off the reservation on this?

Because he's running for President.

2 posted on 01/07/2006 4:38:18 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Not quite a RINO....he's what I call a "Marshmallow Republican".

No spine. Wants the press to like him. You name it.

3 posted on 01/07/2006 4:40:06 AM PST by capt. norm (Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- USC Amendment IV

If Brownback has questions about whether this was followed, he is on the right track.

4 posted on 01/07/2006 4:41:53 AM PST by The_Eaglet (Conservative Chat: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Do they really think turning on the President will get them elected? RINOs are fools.


5 posted on 01/07/2006 4:42:12 AM PST by freeperfromnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Oh good, another backstabber. It would appear that the Republicans might well find themselves in the minority after the elections this fall. To be honest, I'm really not going to miss them very much. They are mushy, jellyfish and at times I am thinking we will be better off without this bad crop. We'll stage a comeback based on solid conservative values and just move on.


6 posted on 01/07/2006 4:42:47 AM PST by putupjob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Brownback was a true gem in the rough: solid on terrorism and defense, strong on abortion, strong on Israel. Now he comes out with this crap? I know at least 6 people who gave him donations who would now never do so again. By joining with the traitors, Brownback can kiss his political future goodbye.


7 posted on 01/07/2006 4:45:12 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Let me try and put this as succinctly as I can, Senator Brownback...and I know you're a good man. But please, try and understand:
WE ARE AT WAR, DAMMIT!!!!

I know there aren't a ton of huge skyscrapers in Kansas that are targets of Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, we are all vulnerable to attacks by these Islamofacists....they'll kill our young men, rape our women, and cut the throats of our children all in the name of Allah. I have no problem with any President finding these jackholes among us and taking them out, okay??

And tell your fellow Republicans who're trying to join the NY Slimes bandwagon on how Bush is "abusing" the Constitution the same thing. "Connecting the dots" to prevent more terrorist attacks like 9/11 means doing whatever it takes. Period.

8 posted on 01/07/2006 4:46:32 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Yeah, he's been reading his own press clippings, like McCain he wants to become a media darling. Now Russert and the other mouthpieces of the DNC can have them on their program to explain why Bush is always wrong, wrong, wrong.

Just sickening the way these folks get used for a little TV time.


9 posted on 01/07/2006 4:47:26 AM PST by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

"The rights of people to keep radioactive materials in their homes and mosques to build weapons, and be free from detection by geiger counters used on public streets putside those homes, shall not be violated."

10 posted on 01/07/2006 4:47:49 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: balch3
He said if the justification holds up, “you’re going to have real trouble having future Congresses giving approval to presidents to go to war.”

This actually sounds like a veiled threat. If congress were half as invested in cutting pork and taxes as they are trying to wrest power from the executive branch, we'd all be a lot better off. As it is, the damfools are likely to help get a lot of innocent people killed.

You're stepping in it Brownback. Better wipe the manure off your shoes before you leave a track of it that you won't be able to get rid of.

11 posted on 01/07/2006 4:49:48 AM PST by prairiebreeze (Take the high road. You'll never have to meet a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3
2 weeks ago?!

and this is BREAKING NEWS?!

CALLIING MODERATOR!!

12 posted on 01/07/2006 4:49:49 AM PST by 1234 (Border control or IMPEACHMENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Let him talk... talk his way right out'a my vote.


13 posted on 01/07/2006 4:50:07 AM PST by johnny7 (“Iuventus stultorum magister”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: montag813

I prefer the Constitution, thank you.


14 posted on 01/07/2006 4:50:21 AM PST by The_Eaglet (Conservative Chat: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- USC Amendment IV

Key word "unreasonable." Is it unreasonable to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks by monitoring their communications into and out of this country?

15 posted on 01/07/2006 4:50:26 AM PST by sinkspur (Trust, but vilify.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

The key words are also "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation."

It is unreasonable if these accountability measures are not violated and government employees remain faithful to their oath to preserve and defend the Constitution, including defending individual liberties.


16 posted on 01/07/2006 4:53:43 AM PST by The_Eaglet (Conservative Chat: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Fugetabout whether he is on or off the reservation. He comes across as a whiny, milquetoast speaker with a monotone voice. Can't be elected prez. imo


17 posted on 01/07/2006 4:53:49 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

That's what I hear so few people say... first that the word "unreasonable" is subjective so there is nothing "clear cut". Secondly, is it not the case the the conditions of wiretap were a) at least one participant in the communication was an al queda name and b) at least one participant was on foreign soil?


18 posted on 01/07/2006 4:53:50 AM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Maybe he has Cowering Republican Senator syndrome wherein he runs to the microphone to distance himself from the President when Old Media is pushing some concocted scandal.


19 posted on 01/07/2006 4:54:38 AM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet

If the "search" is not deemed unreasonable, then how does the rest apply?


20 posted on 01/07/2006 4:54:59 AM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson