Presidents all the same when scandal strikes (Bob Barr turncoat alert)

Atlanta Journal Constitution ^ | December 28, 2005 | Bob Barr

[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

[Jackknife]

Both Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich, also from Cobb county, have a history of being more concerned about privacy than most other politicians...

I've lived in Cobb Co. all my 40 years. True, both of these men are more concerned about personal liberties than most conservative politicians, but Bob has been speaking out against the POTUS since his first term began. Newt, on the other hand, puts the defense of the American people above what Bob sees as a loss of personal freedom. I, too, as a 'neighbor' to both of these men, like both of them. I just really disagree with Bob on this one.

[Jackknife]

Yes, I am a member of the Libertarian Party. However, I voted for Bush twice. Don't assume anything.

Neal Boortz ........ Is that YOU????

[jsubstance]

Ha...funny. I wasn't has giddy about voting for Bush as Boortz was. I didn't like the Libertarian candidate, though I agreed with him on a lot of issues. Kerry is a socialist. So I voted for Bush. Georgia was going for him anyway.

[IamConservative]

The vast majority (if not all by now) of cell communication is digital and sounds like a modem because in fact it is a CDMA or GSM modem.

Many residential phone communications are transmitted to the central office over open air frequencies easily scanned by anyone with a scanner.

While not practical to enforce, it is illegal to monitor these frequencies. It is certainly illegal and enforceable to act on what you hear.

[DeaconRed]

"The Constitution? Due process? Ever heard of them?
Bob Barr is right."

Show me (and "W") where in the constitution Our enemys have any rights! ! !
They want to KILL us
They want to TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY! ! !
Like it or not BUT WE ARE AT WAR AND WILL BE FOR SOME TIME TO COME! ! ! !

[jsubstance]

People who are not citizens of this country are not afford the same rights as those who are. That's obvious. The Constitution protects citizens from this country and it provides them with due process. That is the Bill of Rights...the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments.

[Jackknife]

Georgia was going for him anyway.

You got that right! ;-)

[DeaconRed]

"People who are not citizens of this country are not afford the same rights as those who are."

WRONG:
They have NO RIGHTS
Especially, they have NO RIGHT to destroy US, None, Nada, Zip

[DeaconRed]

NONE NADA ZIP</b>
NONE NADA ZIP

[tarheelswamprat]

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

Bob Barr made some incredibly stupid decisions in his final Congressional election race and was defeated. This is his version of sour grapes. Since his country "rejected" him, he has given his allegience to the ACLU, an organization dedicated to destroying it. It's an old story of human nature, just the same as Jimmy Carter's, or Benedict Arnold's.

The irony is that Barr was a pretty decent Congressman, but rather than learn from his defeat and try to regain his seat later, he threw a tantrum and turned to the dark side.

[DeaconRed]

You, Barr and the MSM are making it sound like we are listning to every American and fishing for information.
Nothing could be further from the truth. If you are a citizen of this country and have no desire to destroy it, you still have the same rights you did berfore 9/11. Yes you can even sell drugs and nobody can listen in on your conversations without a court ordered wiretap.

[jsubstance]

Did you actually read what I wrote?
"People who are not citizens of this country are not afford the same rights as those who are."
Actually read it next time, because you agree with me.

[dennisw]

Bob Barr is a libertarian so he's going to bang on the Patriot Act and wiretapping terrorists all day long

[jsubstance]

You don't even know what's going on, do you? Bush by passed the warrant process to spy on some Americans. He didn't get court approval. That is illegal.

[DeaconRed]

"because you agree with me."

I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU

[DeaconRed]

"You don't even know what's going on, do you?

No you don't, you don't have a clue and the sad part is you NEVER will! ! ! !

[TheForceOfOne]

What the hell does that have to do with it?

The issue is whether or not the president has the authority which he does and was granted to him by our forefathers who wrote the Constitution.

As if that wasn't enough I presented case examples where previous presidents have used this power and up till now no one objected. The reason is the complete blind hatred the left in this country has for this president during a time of war and if you ask me a lot of these idiots have already crossed the line of treason.

The Liberal Bush hating editors and journalists involved with leaking state secrets for personal gain at the NY Slimes should be frog marched down West 43rd Street straight to prison.

[caisson71]

The President lied? Again?

[ArmyTeach]

Someone recently offered the thought that if we fight the war as if we are investigating and prosecuting a crime, we lose. Criminal investigation is deductive while conducting a war is inductive - outmaneuvering and staying one step ahead of the enemy. And time can be so critical as to be a matter of hours or days. Just something to think about...

[rightinthemiddle]

I agree with you on this post.