[Reactionary]

Bruce is really on top of things here. It's Vietnam and Nixon all over again, see?

Liberal retreads are useless.

[mrsmith]

And here I thought it was illegal to change the Constitution without amending it!

The president's constitutional war powers were debated and defined in the convention in 1787:
"FRIDAY AUGUST 17th. IN CONVENTION
...Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.
Mr. SH[E]RMAN thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war."
The vote was 7 to 1.

[MNJohnnie]

Correction, this is by Bruce Moron. Utterly absurd analysis. The Viet Cong were not infiltrating the USA and had not committed the worse mass murder of US Civilians in History. Nixon spied on his political enemies, Bush is spying on OUR enemies. Contrary to the hysteric lies of Moron and his crowd, Bush DID obey the law. He operated under his Section 2 powers as Commander in Chief. There is not one intellectually defensible statement being made by Moron in this article.

[roses of sharon]

Well, it is obvious that Dem Presidents haven't a clue how to protect us, since 9/11 happened after 8 years of threats and bombings by OBL, under Clinton.

I'll take President Bush's record on protecting us anyday.

[stuartcr]

Isn't the law objective and the perceived need to protect, fairly subjective?

[narby]

Obviously the Congressional authorization to use all force necessary against AQ gave Bush the right to tap their phones, even when talking in the US.

But beyond that, the Congress and the Executive branches are "co-equal". Meaning that one does not have power over the other. So an argument can be made that the President can flaunt the will of the Congress.

It's the Constitution that is over both, and if the Congress wants to limit the Presidents power, then they'd best put their limits in a Constitutional Amendment.

Of course the lawyers will disagree with my opinion here because of precedent. But who cares. I can read the constitution for myself, and the SC could set new precedent any time it wishes.

[subterfuge]

He has asserted his right to hold American citizens indefinitely without charging them with any crime if he labels them "enemy combatants."

And 80% of Americans happen to agree with him. What is so hard for the lefties to understand about that?

[Dilbert56]

I thought the internment of Japanese-Americans was upheld by the Supreme Court. How then was it unconstitutional? Old mush-mouth mumbled misinformation.

[Dilbert56]

His attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, has referred to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war as "quaint." Bush has asserted America's right to torture prisoners. He has asserted its right to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens because they might be talking to terrorists.

Is Howard Dean ghost-scripting this? President Bush has not asserted a right to torture. AG Gonzales said some provisions of the Geneva Conventions, like setting up exercise fields, are "quaint". President Bush has asserted the right of the government to listen to phone numbers linked to Al Qaida who might be talking to American citizens. That's very different than the lies Brucie is spewing.

[Wasanother]

Here's the jest of the whole argument, if the President can't use his article 2 authorities because he must go through FISA first then FISA is unconstitutional and must be repealed. If the Rats want to continue to play with the notion that there is no statuary exception to FISA and they manage to win the claim in court then FISA must immediately become unconstitutional and everyone convicted with evidence obtained by a FISA warrant gets to walk free.

[Coop]

Bush has asserted America's right to torture prisoners.

Prove it, Bruce.

[jmaroneps37]

"So ... what ... you're saying is that there are certain situations ... where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal."
Yes brucie old buddy, that's what it means. If what he does is so terribly illegal the people will take corrective measures. Lincoln's illegal moves ended with victory. Roosevelt's illegal move ended with victory. People don't see these moves as being permanent. They understand the difference.
Also I find it interesting that the rat is now so desperate for ammunition to shoot at Bush, that he will now even admit the FDR did illegal and unconstitutional things.

[Wasanother]

I see what this crap is, CNN can't prove the President broke the law because he didn't and to CNN everyone knows he did but they'll let him slide on this one because after all it was in the best interest of the country. Give me a freakin break CNN, Comatose News Network.

[NCSteve]

I haven't made up my mind on Bush's wiretapping program yet, but I do know that this comparison is utterly fatuous.

Nixon abused his powers as the executive by ordering wiretaps and police action against his internal political enemies. This interview with Frost was rationalization and Nixon let some of his true feelings (WRT the head of the executive as monarch) slip out: if the President orders it, it's not illegal.

I haven't heard Bush claim to be above the law in all of this. Indeed, the assertions of his team have taken as their premise that he has the constitutional authority to conduct such activities.

We shouldn't be all that surprised at this article, though. The average "journalist" is generally not bright enough to recognize more than a surface likeness in any case.

[MEGoody]

So this isn't really the "Nixon Bush" doctrine. It's been the doctrine of Presidents for a very long time.

[JoeFromSidney]

A litle history may be in order.

Prior to WWII, the US broke the Japanese diplomatic code, and regularly read messages between spymasters in Japan and Japs in the US. There were several hundred Japs in the US who were prepared to commit sabotage and espionage if war broke out. One reason given for the "relocation" of West Coast Japs was that if the government picked up only the ones we knew were disloyal, and ignored the rest, it would tip off the Japs that we could read their messages. (Doesn't mean I agree with the relocation, but that was part of the reason given.)

During WWII, the US interecepted and read messages between Soviet spies in the US to their spymasters in the Soviet Union. Many of the results have been published as the Venona Transcripts.

During the fighting in El Salvador, the US intercepted and read messages between the the Communists in ES and their supporters in the US.

No one seems to have been upset, then or since, at the government intercepting messages between enemy agents in the US and their contacts overseas. Why now?