Posted on 02/20/2006 9:25:10 AM PST by Reagan Man
(CNSNews.com) - A liberal advocacy group is organizing "Constitution Vigils" on Wednesday to prod Congress to investigate President Bush's alleged "lawbreaking" in connection with the National Security Agency surveillance program.
"We believe that public pressure will force Congress to take this seriously," MoveOn.org said in an email message to supporters.
"When our elected officials are home for the President's Day break, they need to see the faces of people in their community who expect them to hold the president accountable. If thousands of us come together, we'll give Congress the push they need to go all the way."
MoveOn.org is urging Bush opponents to either attend or host one of many "vigils" taking place across the country on Wednesday, Feb. 22.
"At each vigil, we'll get together with other MoveOn members and supporters from the ACLU and People for the American Way to read the Bill of Rights to remind Congress about what's at stake and that it's their job to defend the Constitution. And, we'll invite the media and get our message out to millions of Americans," MoveOn.org said.
MoveOn.org said a Justice Department review of the NSA surveillance program is a start - but it's not enough. It wants Congress to also investigate the president's "dangerous power grab."
MoveOn.org is telling supporters that the Bush administration is "nervous" about what an investigation will find and is therefore pressuring Republicans to "back off." It quotes press reports saying that the Bush administration is lobbying against a congressional probe of the NSA program.
"By attending a vigil on the 22nd, you'll be sending a clear message to your elected officials: they need to do their job, defend the Constitution and hold the president accountable, and you're watching to make sure they do," MoveOn.org concluded.
I too am uncomfortable with the government listening in on Americans' phone conversations without a warrant. Then again I am not a terrorist supporter so I am in little danger.
It's not simply American's conversation with just anybody. The other end of the call is in a foreign countryand suspected of being a terrorist.
It's amazing that people insist on getting it wrong and/or phrasing it in such a way that it sounds like they'd be listening on a call to Aunt Margaret.
Try reading my whole post genius.
I didn't think name-calling belongs on this forum, but if you must, go ahead.
More crap from the clueless libs.
Face it. Lame ones. Your days are numbered.
Your antics are destined to be determined to be sedition. Then we can visit you in prison when we want a laugh.
The left will be relentless in this regard. It is one of the new key parts of their impeachment jihad.
The part of this that is uncomfortable is that another administration with this kind of power would be very dangerous.
Think of Hillary as president with the power to listen in on conversations that she thinks are dangerous to her concept of the American way of life.
Sounds good to me. Let's start with Roosevelt, then Kennedy, then Johnson and end with Bush.
I think the only thing they should "probe" is why we are wasting money wiretapping these jugheads when you can hear the same crap in theaters, class rooms, malls, sporting arenas and even at NASCAR races. Americans are obsessed with gabbing on telephones 24/7 and are proud to let the whole world hear what they are gabbing about.
Each sentence in your post partially negates the other. Reminds me of John Kerry.
I didn't think name-calling belongs on this forum, but if you must, go ahead.
The RATS and the media can stamp their feet like children and demand until the cows come home. They have none of the committee chairmanships, the hearings have been pulled, and they are over. Tough noogies.
Actually, I have no problem with President Hillary Clinton listening on international phone calls between known al Qaeda functionaries overseas and people in the US.
In fact, international electronic communications are fair game for the intelligence agencies of any nation, and have been since the invention of international electronic communications.
Actually, I have no problem with President Hillary Clinton listening on international phone calls between known al Qaeda functionaries overseas and people in the US.
And of course you know that is all she would use that for, not for political purposes against prospective opponents. Because who ever heard of the Clintons doing anything shady?
I’m sorry, but you are making absolutely zero sense.
You are suggesting that we should have a problem with the current administration legally listening in on international electronic communications with known al Qaeda operatives, because of the fact that a possible future Administration might possibly conduct illegal activities totally unrelated to what we are currently discussing?
What exactly would “having a problem” with the Bush Administration’s current activities accomplish in regard to possible future crimes by imagined future administrations?
A) I think it is good to spy on the terrorists and their supporters in or out of this country. But why is getting a warrant all of a sudden too hard to do?
B) I DO question how smart this power is for ANY President to have. I feel that if we were talking about a President Kerry right now, a lot more people on this and other conservative sights would be screaming bloody murder.
A) I think it is good to spy on the terrorists and their supporters in or out of this country. But why is getting a warrant all of a sudden too hard to do?
For one thing, the executive branch is coequal with the legislative branch. Article II makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces. In matters regarding the conduct of intelligence gathering against our enemies during wartime, the legislative branch has no power to limit the power of the commander-in-chief.
B) I DO question how smart this power is for ANY President to have.
What power? The power to intercept international communications between people in the US and known operatives of our foreign enemies?!? The President has ALWAYS had this power and the other two branches of government have no power to restrict it. What you are suggesting would require a Constitutional Amendment.
I feel that if we were talking about a President Kerry right now, a lot more people on this and other conservative sights would be screaming bloody murder.
President Kerry would retain all rights under the Constitution that President Bush and all President’s before him have had.
Have you or anyone even heard a so called legal expert cite just what laws were violated?
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.