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

Skip to comments.

Presidents all the same when scandal strikes (Bob Barr turncoat alert)
Atlanta Journal Constitution ^ | December 28, 2005 | Bob Barr

Posted on 12/28/2005 12:55:26 PM PST by balch3

Two of the most powerful moments of political déjà vu I have ever experienced took place recently in the context of the Bush administration's defense of presidentially ordered electronic spying on American citizens.

First, in the best tradition of former President Bill Clinton's classic, "it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is" defense, President Bush responded to a question at a White House news conference about what now appears to be a clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws by trying to argue that he had not ordered the National Security Agency to "monitor" phone and e-mail communications of American citizens without court order; he had merely ordered them to "detect" improper communications

(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Georgia; Unclassified; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: aclu; aclubarr; barr; barrtheidiot; bobbarr; bush; fisa; fisc; homelandsecurity; libetariankook; nsa; patriotleak; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: balch3

Barr prostituted himself to the ACLU. He carries their anti-American venom for pay.


21 posted on 12/28/2005 1:05:32 PM PST by OldFriend (The Dems enABLEd DANGER and 3,000 Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jsubstance

The Constitution gave him the right...

it is the way that Congress and judges screw around with the Constitution that is the problem...

Besides, NONE of these people deserve the "due process" you refer to...unless they named the latest military weapon the DUE PROCESS!!


22 posted on 12/28/2005 1:05:49 PM PST by Txsleuth (Merry Christmas everyone!!! Happy Hanukkah!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
It appears that he(barr) has found the courage to get up off of his knees.............................

And smack the ACLU right on their lips.

23 posted on 12/28/2005 1:06:52 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jsubstance

Bob Barr is WRONG and the Constitution and Due Process is what the President has on his side.


24 posted on 12/28/2005 1:07:31 PM PST by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: balch3

"I don't know what's gotten into Bob Barr."

Both Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich, also from Cobb county, have a history of being more concerned about privacy than most other politicians... in general it's one of the reasons I like both of them.


25 posted on 12/28/2005 1:08:20 PM PST by gondramB (If even once you pay danegeld then you never get rid of the Dane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sabatino28
When you make a call on a cell phone...Is there an expectation of privacy? I do not believe there is as your signal is being transmitted through air for anyone to pick up with a scanner from Radio Shack.

Actually I think it's against the law to monitor cell conversations, and I may be mistaken, but I don't believe Radio Shack sells scanners that are capable of monitoring cell frequency's any longer.

26 posted on 12/28/2005 1:08:32 PM PST by Jigsaw John
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jsubstance

Bob Barr is dead wrong. This is war, not a criminal investigation. Big difference.


27 posted on 12/28/2005 1:09:30 PM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant

The President stands on firm legal ground, just as Lincoln did when he suspended habeas corpus, an action that many decried as illegal yet is clearly declared in the Constitution.

http://www.antimedia.us/


28 posted on 12/28/2005 1:10:44 PM PST by TheForceOfOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Bob Barr is dead wrong. This is war, not a criminal investigation. Big difference.

Tell that also to bob barr's current employer, the ACLU.BTW, they(ACLU) would laugh at you over their apertif's and canape's being served in nancy pelosi's office.

29 posted on 12/28/2005 1:12:06 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Somehow I don't feel much safer knowing Bob Barr and his cohorts at the ACLU are fighting for my civil rights and against terrorism at the same time.


30 posted on 12/28/2005 1:12:15 PM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Bob Barr showed to be the statist phony he is when he refused to allow a marijuana initiate to even be placed on the ballot in DC. So much for self-government.


31 posted on 12/28/2005 1:24:55 PM PST by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caisson71
Bob Barr is WRONG and the Constitution and Due Process is what the President has on his side.

Wrong about what? Did you read the article? He says the monitoring appears to violate electronic surveilance law. Do you know for a fact that that's wrong? Other than that, he's simply saying the president is not being honest about what they are doing. If he's got the Constitution on his side, why lie about it?

32 posted on 12/28/2005 1:26:30 PM PST by Huck (Don't Vote: It only encourages them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Bob Barr is dead wrong. This is war, not a criminal investigation. Big difference.

Wrong about what? What did he say in the article that's wrong?

33 posted on 12/28/2005 1:26:58 PM PST by Huck (Don't Vote: It only encourages them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

Yeah, why not just find a winning team and be on it. Never mind what they actually do, as long as you can feel like a winner.


34 posted on 12/28/2005 1:27:57 PM PST by Huck (Don't Vote: It only encourages them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

"How can someone be a member of a party that can never win anything? This is an indication of your low political IQ."

What a great little Bolshevik you'd make.


35 posted on 12/28/2005 1:30:38 PM PST by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Huck

this: "about what now appears to be a clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws"


36 posted on 12/28/2005 1:32:01 PM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: pissant

It's not this president that I'm worried about tho, imagine President Hillary Clinton with these powers. Forget FBI files and getting the IRS on their enemies, just listen to phone calls.


37 posted on 12/28/2005 1:38:40 PM PST by ObiJuan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Go take yore medicine man. Anyone who wastes his or her vote by voting for a party that can never win is a political idiot, there is no other explanation for it. Please do not bring me this "how about principles" thing. It is a very lame argument when these principles can never make it to the political stage and hence it cannot be implemented.
38 posted on 12/28/2005 1:41:49 PM PST by jveritas (The Axis of Defeatism: Left wing liberals, Buchananites, and third party voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I think the conundrum for a President is when he is faced with a law that was passed and signed by a previous President that abrogated authority that he has under the Constitution.

Under this law, his War Powers are ham-strung and the law should not be in place as it is unless we want a FISA court limiting the President's ability to defend against foreign powers.

He issued a EO that violated the structure set up by the law in order to carry out his clearly defined Constitutional responsibilities.

Should he have fought a court battle, of some years length, against a law so structured? [The question isn't to you Huck...just rhetorical]

39 posted on 12/28/2005 1:42:08 PM PST by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jsubstance
The Constitution? Due process? Ever heard of them? Bob Barr is right.

Yes he is; but, you won't get any mindless party groupies to agree with you. Their adopted political dogma is rooted mainly in emotional hyperbole.

40 posted on 12/28/2005 1:44:27 PM PST by eskimo (Political groupies - rabid defenders of the indefensible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 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