There’s more volatility on this front as yours truly continues to get PISSED about this spying business. A lively debate from the many different intermingling perspectives - left, right, moderate - continues to rage.
Go check it out.
Additionally: Though Barbara Boxer is not my idea of a non-partisan source, she has written this letter to Nixon White House Counsel and Presidential Scholar, John Dean, seeking input.
On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.
On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.
This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.
Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean’s statement.
Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 64 comments }
David Nick 12.21.05 at 3:44 pm
I hate to beat a dead horse on this issue Aaron but Powerline Blog has an excellent article today that is relevant to your stress levels LOL
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012623.php
(They even link to a chicago times reporters story about the legality, also another good article.)
Please don’t burst any blood vessels :)
David Nick 12.21.05 at 3:44 pm
I hate to beat a dead horse on this issue Aaron but Powerline Blog has an excellent article today that is relevant to your stress levels LOL
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012623.php
(They even link to a chicago times reporters story about the legality, also another good article.)
Please don’t burst any blood vessels :)
Aaron 12.21.05 at 4:19 pm
I’m very close to an aneurism over this issue. :-)
Aaron 12.21.05 at 4:19 pm
I’m very close to an aneurism over this issue. :-)
Mike 12.21.05 at 4:24 pm
GET OVER IT… This country needs to be protected from the “MANY” sources who would without any remorse kill thousands of American citizens… Why don’t we put the security of the United States in the hands of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry or Edward Kennedy… As I’ve stated before, whatever your thoughts are about Bush concerning many other issues, and I would agree with them, he is doing what is necessary to protect our country… Call the neocons or whatever they are getting the job done… I know you are a Constitionist and I agree with most of your thinking, BUT when it comes to the security of this country you need to get off your soapbox… I can’t state for fact, but I wouldn’t doubt that there enough precedent out their to justifiy what Bush authorized… I’m sure that FDR, Truman and any other “WAR” time presidents did what was necessary to protect America. Just what is your issue anyway? Do you really feel your civil liberties are so endangered that you would jeopardize the safety of this country?
Mike 12.21.05 at 4:24 pm
GET OVER IT… This country needs to be protected from the “MANY” sources who would without any remorse kill thousands of American citizens… Why don’t we put the security of the United States in the hands of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry or Edward Kennedy… As I’ve stated before, whatever your thoughts are about Bush concerning many other issues, and I would agree with them, he is doing what is necessary to protect our country… Call the neocons or whatever they are getting the job done… I know you are a Constitionist and I agree with most of your thinking, BUT when it comes to the security of this country you need to get off your soapbox… I can’t state for fact, but I wouldn’t doubt that there enough precedent out their to justifiy what Bush authorized… I’m sure that FDR, Truman and any other “WAR” time presidents did what was necessary to protect America. Just what is your issue anyway? Do you really feel your civil liberties are so endangered that you would jeopardize the safety of this country?
Aaron 12.21.05 at 4:29 pm
I’m sorry. I am not just going to get over it. And shame on you for making this a partisan issue. I don’t want the second in charge anymore than I want the first in charge. The issue is not who is in charge. The issue is right and wrong and Constitutionality.
I don’t agree that this practice is in the best interest of this country so you get the hell over it. Constitutional practice has served this country well for over 200 years and I am not about to sit back and simply shut up because we’re in a new millenium and all of the suddent the rule of law does not apply because there are some scary guys out there that want to do this nation harm.
Do not forget Lincoln doing somethign quite similar and suspending Habeas Corpus. Remember what SCOTUS said? Completely unanimously they shot his ass down and thank God for that!
A President does NOT have unilateral right to pre-empt that which is institutionalized under Code and Case Law for hundreds of years.
Sorry, Mike YOU get over it.
Aaron 12.21.05 at 4:29 pm
I’m sorry. I am not just going to get over it. And shame on you for making this a partisan issue. I don’t want the second in charge anymore than I want the first in charge. The issue is not who is in charge. The issue is right and wrong and Constitutionality.
I don’t agree that this practice is in the best interest of this country so you get the hell over it. Constitutional practice has served this country well for over 200 years and I am not about to sit back and simply shut up because we’re in a new millenium and all of the suddent the rule of law does not apply because there are some scary guys out there that want to do this nation harm.
Do not forget Lincoln doing somethign quite similar and suspending Habeas Corpus. Remember what SCOTUS said? Completely unanimously they shot his ass down and thank God for that!
A President does NOT have unilateral right to pre-empt that which is institutionalized under Code and Case Law for hundreds of years.
Sorry, Mike YOU get over it.
Aaron 12.21.05 at 4:42 pm
Oh, I forgot…
I can’t state for fact, but I wouldn’t doubt that there enough precedent out their to justifiy what Bush authorized…
If there was justification, then there would be no issue going back to the secret court and getting the necessary authorization USING THE RETROACTIVE PROVISION OF FISA!!!!!
Such a simple requirement.
Aaron 12.21.05 at 4:42 pm
Oh, I forgot…
I can’t state for fact, but I wouldn’t doubt that there enough precedent out their to justifiy what Bush authorized…
If there was justification, then there would be no issue going back to the secret court and getting the necessary authorization USING THE RETROACTIVE PROVISION OF FISA!!!!!
Such a simple requirement.
Mike 12.21.05 at 4:44 pm
You said… “I don’t agree that this practice is in the best interest of this country so you get the hell over it. Constitutional practice has served this country well for over 200 years and I am not about to sit back and simply shut up because we’re in a new millenium and all of the suddent the rule of law does not apply because there are some scary guys out there that want to do this nation harm”.
I will get over it when this country can feel secure from the many sources who wish it harm… You are correct that this country has been well served by our Constitutional practices, BUT we now live in an age of WMD, or as you put it “scary guys” when one device will kill possibly MILLIONS… Where is our Constitution if the country doesn’t survive? Where would our economy be if say a WMD was set of in Times Square? How about one being set off in downtown Washington? I’m sorry, but the Constitution needs to take second seat to the security of our country so you get the HELL over it….
Mike 12.21.05 at 4:44 pm
You said… “I don’t agree that this practice is in the best interest of this country so you get the hell over it. Constitutional practice has served this country well for over 200 years and I am not about to sit back and simply shut up because we’re in a new millenium and all of the suddent the rule of law does not apply because there are some scary guys out there that want to do this nation harm”.
I will get over it when this country can feel secure from the many sources who wish it harm… You are correct that this country has been well served by our Constitutional practices, BUT we now live in an age of WMD, or as you put it “scary guys” when one device will kill possibly MILLIONS… Where is our Constitution if the country doesn’t survive? Where would our economy be if say a WMD was set of in Times Square? How about one being set off in downtown Washington? I’m sorry, but the Constitution needs to take second seat to the security of our country so you get the HELL over it….
Aaron 12.21.05 at 4:47 pm
You are correct that this country has been well served by our Constitutional practices, BUT we now live in an age of WMD, or as you put it “scary guys†when one device will kill possibly MILLIONS…
So amend the fucking Constitution. If not, then go to Canada. The Consitution is law regardless of WMDs.
Aaron 12.21.05 at 4:47 pm
You are correct that this country has been well served by our Constitutional practices, BUT we now live in an age of WMD, or as you put it “scary guys†when one device will kill possibly MILLIONS…
So amend the fucking Constitution. If not, then go to Canada. The Consitution is law regardless of WMDs.
Mike 12.21.05 at 4:47 pm
You said… “If there was justification, then there would be no issue going back to the secret court and getting the necessary authorization USING THE RETROACTIVE PROVISION OF FISA”!!!!!
You nor I know the time frame of what needed to be done… I would rather have whatever agencies do whatever is necessary, whenever to protect this country without first having to get the approval of some judge… Thousands could die while waiting for a warrant…
Mike 12.21.05 at 4:47 pm
You said… “If there was justification, then there would be no issue going back to the secret court and getting the necessary authorization USING THE RETROACTIVE PROVISION OF FISA”!!!!!
You nor I know the time frame of what needed to be done… I would rather have whatever agencies do whatever is necessary, whenever to protect this country without first having to get the approval of some judge… Thousands could die while waiting for a warrant…
Aaron 12.21.05 at 4:49 pm
Sorry, Mike. You will not get me to go along with your anti-Constitution rhetoric.
Aaron 12.21.05 at 4:49 pm
Sorry, Mike. You will not get me to go along with your anti-Constitution rhetoric.
Mike 12.21.05 at 4:50 pm
So amend the fucking Constitution. If not, then go to Canada. The Consitution is law regardless of WMDs.
Aaron… You are an intelligent guy, but that is the stupidest statement you have ever made… Regardless of WMDs???? What are you protecting if the country doesn’t survive?
Mike 12.21.05 at 4:50 pm
So amend the fucking Constitution. If not, then go to Canada. The Consitution is law regardless of WMDs.
Aaron… You are an intelligent guy, but that is the stupidest statement you have ever made… Regardless of WMDs???? What are you protecting if the country doesn’t survive?
David Nick 12.21.05 at 4:51 pm
“Sorry, David. YOU get over it.”
Hey Aaron? I just made the first post….the rest of them were between you and Mike LOL.
David Nick 12.21.05 at 4:51 pm
“Sorry, David. YOU get over it.”
Hey Aaron? I just made the first post….the rest of them were between you and Mike LOL.
Aaron 12.21.05 at 4:52 pm
It was a typo, David…
You nor I know the time frame of what needed to be done…
72 hours is not enough time to get your act together to go before a court and ask for authorization?? If I’m the director of NSA and my guys come to me and say that they need to move NOW on actionable intelligence but they need to do some eavesdropping, I can say “Go for it” THEN pick up the phone and call a judge. How is 72 hours not enough time?
Mike 12.21.05 at 4:52 pm
Rhetoric!!! I’m for keeoping this counrty safe… You’re more interested in what the words state in the Constitution… No leeway for stopping terrorists from destroying what the Constitution was built on…
Mike 12.21.05 at 4:52 pm
Rhetoric!!! I’m for keeoping this counrty safe… You’re more interested in what the words state in the Constitution… No leeway for stopping terrorists from destroying what the Constitution was built on…
Aaron 12.21.05 at 4:52 pm
It was a typo, David…
You nor I know the time frame of what needed to be done…
72 hours is not enough time to get your act together to go before a court and ask for authorization?? If I’m the director of NSA and my guys come to me and say that they need to move NOW on actionable intelligence but they need to do some eavesdropping, I can say “Go for it” THEN pick up the phone and call a judge. How is 72 hours not enough time?
Aaron 12.21.05 at 4:54 pm
No leeway whatsoever. If it can’t be done in the context of the rule of law, it can’t be done. There’s a reason why the founding fathers wrote checks and balances into the law of the land and there’s a reason why all elected officials swear an oath to uphold it. It is above any one man or office. Sorry, Mike… find a Constitutional way to defend the country or you have no right to be in office. Swearing to uphold and protect it makes you a liar.
Aaron 12.21.05 at 4:54 pm
No leeway whatsoever. If it can’t be done in the context of the rule of law, it can’t be done. There’s a reason why the founding fathers wrote checks and balances into the law of the land and there’s a reason why all elected officials swear an oath to uphold it. It is above any one man or office. Sorry, Mike… find a Constitutional way to defend the country or you have no right to be in office. Swearing to uphold and protect it makes you a liar.
Mike 12.21.05 at 5:03 pm
You’ve lost this one… If the country doesn’t survive what do we have? The Constitution is a written document that this country is based on, but you first have to ensure the COUNTRY survives… Kill the country and the document, is where? I’m sorry, but I believe it is more important to keep our country “ALIVE” and have the opportunity to build on the written document… Answer the question… Is it more important to protect the Constitution or America????????????
Mike 12.21.05 at 5:03 pm
You’ve lost this one… If the country doesn’t survive what do we have? The Constitution is a written document that this country is based on, but you first have to ensure the COUNTRY survives… Kill the country and the document, is where? I’m sorry, but I believe it is more important to keep our country “ALIVE” and have the opportunity to build on the written document… Answer the question… Is it more important to protect the Constitution or America????????????
Aaron 12.21.05 at 5:57 pm
I’m sorry, Mike. You can’t convince me that National Security would have een compromised if the President had obeyed the law. We would not have died in a pillar of fire if the President had gone to the court (retroactively) for proper authority. Stop being a sensationalist.
Aaron 12.21.05 at 5:57 pm
I’m sorry, Mike. You can’t convince me that National Security would have een compromised if the President had obeyed the law. We would not have died in a pillar of fire if the President had gone to the court (retroactively) for proper authority. Stop being a sensationalist.
Mike 12.21.05 at 6:08 pm
I know I can’t convice you, but you didn’t answer my question… How and when do you know if NATIONAL SECURITY would have been compromised??? As the PRESIDENT you have to act on what you KNOW could happen… Clinton spent the entire decade of the nineties in just that mode and how many times were we attacked??? Aaron I really do agree with you on the majority of what we are discussing, BUT the survival of this country out weighs any other objective… I don’t care if WE DO LOSE SOME CIVIL LIBERTIES as long as the country survives… Keep the country alive and we can continue to build on what we have… If the country dies, we have nothing…
ONE WMD dedinated in a major city will have catestropic repercussions… You know that… We have to do whatever it takes to prevent that from happenning…
Mike 12.21.05 at 6:08 pm
I know I can’t convice you, but you didn’t answer my question… How and when do you know if NATIONAL SECURITY would have been compromised??? As the PRESIDENT you have to act on what you KNOW could happen… Clinton spent the entire decade of the nineties in just that mode and how many times were we attacked??? Aaron I really do agree with you on the majority of what we are discussing, BUT the survival of this country out weighs any other objective… I don’t care if WE DO LOSE SOME CIVIL LIBERTIES as long as the country survives… Keep the country alive and we can continue to build on what we have… If the country dies, we have nothing…
ONE WMD dedinated in a major city will have catestropic repercussions… You know that… We have to do whatever it takes to prevent that from happenning…
Aaron 12.21.05 at 7:31 pm
Mike,
Let me ask you a question. If Bill Clinton, Hillary or Harry Reid were president TODAY, or for that matter should one of them (minus Bill) become President in 2008, how would you feel about this?
Be honest with me, my readers and yourself. I know how you’d feel. So tell me. Tell us. What would your tune be?
And for bonus points, tell us how your reaction to this question would non-partisan. It would be presumable that if they were President, they had been entrusted by the American people with the same power you want Bush to have. In other words, can you look past the person to the Office?
Aaron 12.21.05 at 7:31 pm
Mike,
Let me ask you a question. If Bill Clinton, Hillary or Harry Reid were president TODAY, or for that matter should one of them (minus Bill) become President in 2008, how would you feel about this?
Be honest with me, my readers and yourself. I know how you’d feel. So tell me. Tell us. What would your tune be?
And for bonus points, tell us how your reaction to this question would non-partisan. It would be presumable that if they were President, they had been entrusted by the American people with the same power you want Bush to have. In other words, can you look past the person to the Office?
Mike 12.21.05 at 7:51 pm
OK… Aaron for me when it comes to the security of AMERICA I really don’t care who is protecting the country, if what they are doing is really protecting us… YOU MISS THE WHOLE POINT… PROTECT AMERICA… Truthfully, though none of the people you mentioned would be capable of protecting our country, because they are all defeatist… They belong to the “blame America” crowd… It’s always what have we done wrong to make the rest of the world be against us….
The bottom line for me Aaron is protecting America… The Constitution can be taken care of only if America survives…
Now… YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION…
Is it more important to protect the Constitution or America????????????
Mike 12.21.05 at 7:51 pm
OK… Aaron for me when it comes to the security of AMERICA I really don’t care who is protecting the country, if what they are doing is really protecting us… YOU MISS THE WHOLE POINT… PROTECT AMERICA… Truthfully, though none of the people you mentioned would be capable of protecting our country, because they are all defeatist… They belong to the “blame America” crowd… It’s always what have we done wrong to make the rest of the world be against us….
The bottom line for me Aaron is protecting America… The Constitution can be taken care of only if America survives…
Now… YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION…
Is it more important to protect the Constitution or America????????????
Mike 12.21.05 at 8:05 pm
Oh… I forgot… Do I get the bonus point????
Mike 12.21.05 at 8:05 pm
Oh… I forgot… Do I get the bonus point????
Aaron 12.21.05 at 8:07 pm
The foundations outlined in the Constitution provide a framework for defense of the Nation. It provides checks and balances wherein the Office of the President shall have certain powers granted to it and have further power granted in time of declared war. It provides for Courts to maintain a buffer between the politicians and the people.
I believe by preserving the essence of the Constitution, you setup an atmosphere where the Nation itself can be preserved.
I don’t believe allowing the President — any President — to do whatever he wants to do whenever he wants to do it preserves the Nation as it breaks down the very fiber of who we are.
For instance, if a President deemed it important to maintain office during a time of war and he had reached the end of his second term, he could eliminate the Electoral college and unilaterally postpose elections for one year.
It’s dangerous precedent to set to allow one branch of government to snub the Constitution for ANY reason. Don’t tell me it’s exaggerated. It could happen. It’s a slippery slope.
Why can’t the President use the courts????
Aaron 12.21.05 at 8:07 pm
The foundations outlined in the Constitution provide a framework for defense of the Nation. It provides checks and balances wherein the Office of the President shall have certain powers granted to it and have further power granted in time of declared war. It provides for Courts to maintain a buffer between the politicians and the people.
I believe by preserving the essence of the Constitution, you setup an atmosphere where the Nation itself can be preserved.
I don’t believe allowing the President — any President — to do whatever he wants to do whenever he wants to do it preserves the Nation as it breaks down the very fiber of who we are.
For instance, if a President deemed it important to maintain office during a time of war and he had reached the end of his second term, he could eliminate the Electoral college and unilaterally postpose elections for one year.
It’s dangerous precedent to set to allow one branch of government to snub the Constitution for ANY reason. Don’t tell me it’s exaggerated. It could happen. It’s a slippery slope.
Why can’t the President use the courts????
Aaron 12.21.05 at 8:08 pm
Oh… I forgot… Do I get the bonus point????
No, you couldn’t resist partisan shots.
Aaron 12.21.05 at 8:08 pm
Oh… I forgot… Do I get the bonus point????
No, you couldn’t resist partisan shots.
Mike 12.21.05 at 8:25 pm
You said…
“it and have further power granted in time of declared war. It provides for Courts to maintain a buffer between the politicians and the people”.
Aaron…..You keep throwing questions back at my question… I am not against you… I agree with almost everything you are saying, BUT the CONSTITUTION is not more important than the country… I agree with what is outlined in the Constitution… You said earlier change the Constitution… OK… How long does that take? You said we are not really at war, not declared, but we are at WAR… How do we react in a way to keep our ountry secure and at the same time run through the process of changing the Constitution?
Mike 12.21.05 at 8:25 pm
You said…
“it and have further power granted in time of declared war. It provides for Courts to maintain a buffer between the politicians and the people”.
Aaron…..You keep throwing questions back at my question… I am not against you… I agree with almost everything you are saying, BUT the CONSTITUTION is not more important than the country… I agree with what is outlined in the Constitution… You said earlier change the Constitution… OK… How long does that take? You said we are not really at war, not declared, but we are at WAR… How do we react in a way to keep our ountry secure and at the same time run through the process of changing the Constitution?
Aaron 12.21.05 at 8:27 pm
How do we react in a way to keep our ountry secure and at the same time run through the process of changing the Constitution?
Well as a start, we adhere to the rule of law that would not have compromised our security. There is no excuse for not going to the FISC within 72 hours. If we can’t agree on that basic premise, we have nothing to agree on.
Aaron 12.21.05 at 8:27 pm
How do we react in a way to keep our ountry secure and at the same time run through the process of changing the Constitution?
Well as a start, we adhere to the rule of law that would not have compromised our security. There is no excuse for not going to the FISC within 72 hours. If we can’t agree on that basic premise, we have nothing to agree on.
Mike 12.21.05 at 8:29 pm
Well… you tell me if those people could keep our country safe… Oh, and by the way would the NYT have released the story if we had a Democrat in the White House? Nooooooo… and you know that… There are many issues regarding Bush that I feel he has failed, but in fighting against terrorism he has done an excellent job… Nothing he does is ever going to get any praise from the Left leaning Demorats or the MSM… Can you deny that?
Mike 12.21.05 at 8:29 pm
Well… you tell me if those people could keep our country safe… Oh, and by the way would the NYT have released the story if we had a Democrat in the White House? Nooooooo… and you know that… There are many issues regarding Bush that I feel he has failed, but in fighting against terrorism he has done an excellent job… Nothing he does is ever going to get any praise from the Left leaning Demorats or the MSM… Can you deny that?
Aaron 12.21.05 at 8:34 pm
You just don’t get it. This is not about Bush. This is about the power of the Presidency and the authority of the courts. I don’t care about the what-when-where-whys of the NYT releasing the article. The administration denies none of it!
you tell me if those people could keep our country safe…
Call it a paper trail. I don’t care. It’s the protection of the law to get a warrant. The FISC has denied 4… count them… 4 of over 100 FISC requests since FISA was incepted in 1978. IT’s a shoe-in. Slam dunk. Do it to cover your ass. But whatever, just do it.
There would be no issue had Bush done the legal thing. He didn’t even have to wait for the warrant. HE had a 72 hour retroactive provision.
Aaron 12.21.05 at 8:34 pm
You just don’t get it. This is not about Bush. This is about the power of the Presidency and the authority of the courts. I don’t care about the what-when-where-whys of the NYT releasing the article. The administration denies none of it!
you tell me if those people could keep our country safe…
Call it a paper trail. I don’t care. It’s the protection of the law to get a warrant. The FISC has denied 4… count them… 4 of over 100 FISC requests since FISA was incepted in 1978. IT’s a shoe-in. Slam dunk. Do it to cover your ass. But whatever, just do it.
There would be no issue had Bush done the legal thing. He didn’t even have to wait for the warrant. HE had a 72 hour retroactive provision.
Mike 12.21.05 at 8:37 pm
Well as a start, we adhere to the rule of law that would not have compromised our security”.
Excuse me…. What the Fn… does that mean???
COMPROMISED OUR SECURITY??? HOW????
Aaron… You know I love this, but I’m heading up to the great “White Out” of Buffalo for Christmas…
Merry Christmas buddy… We can pick this up later…
Mike 12.21.05 at 8:37 pm
Well as a start, we adhere to the rule of law that would not have compromised our security”.
Excuse me…. What the Fn… does that mean???
COMPROMISED OUR SECURITY??? HOW????
Aaron… You know I love this, but I’m heading up to the great “White Out” of Buffalo for Christmas…
Merry Christmas buddy… We can pick this up later…
Aaron 12.21.05 at 8:38 pm
was about to check out as well. I said adhering to FISA would not have compromised our security. In the least bit.
Travel safely.
Aaron 12.21.05 at 8:38 pm
was about to check out as well. I said adhering to FISA would not have compromised our security. In the least bit.
Travel safely.
Mike 12.21.05 at 8:52 pm
Oh… Before I go… you still have not given an answer to my question…
Merry Christmas…. Never have been Politically Correct… Never will be…
Mike 12.21.05 at 8:52 pm
Oh… Before I go… you still have not given an answer to my question…
Merry Christmas…. Never have been Politically Correct… Never will be…
David Nick 12.21.05 at 11:38 pm
You two have been going at this for 5!!!! hours!!!! LOL
Man, all this drama, I need a beer….a root beer that is ;)
David Nick 12.21.05 at 11:38 pm
You two have been going at this for 5!!!! hours!!!! LOL
Man, all this drama, I need a beer….a root beer that is ;)
Aaron 12.22.05 at 10:18 am
Mike, I answered your question here…
In summary, I think we can protect both the Constitution and America at the same time and to use sensationalism to make it seem like it’s an either/or situation is stupid.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that trying to protect one and not both actually undermines the protection of one. If you defend America to the point of scrapping the Constitution, you throw this country into martial dictatorial law. If you defend the Constitution and neglect America, you become too short sighted and can’t see the forest through the trees.
You need both.
David,
Beer is better. Have one for me.
Aaron 12.22.05 at 10:18 am
Mike, I answered your question here…
In summary, I think we can protect both the Constitution and America at the same time and to use sensationalism to make it seem like it’s an either/or situation is stupid.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that trying to protect one and not both actually undermines the protection of one. If you defend America to the point of scrapping the Constitution, you throw this country into martial dictatorial law. If you defend the Constitution and neglect America, you become too short sighted and can’t see the forest through the trees.
You need both.
David,
Beer is better. Have one for me.
David Nick 12.22.05 at 11:48 pm
Have you guys read Ann Coulter’s column on RealClearPolitics?
Here’s the link: http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_22_05_AC.html
And an excerpt I think is quite Ann Coulter:
“Which brings me to this week’s scandal about No Such Agency spying on “Americans.” I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.”
HeH
David Nick 12.22.05 at 11:48 pm
Have you guys read Ann Coulter’s column on RealClearPolitics?
Here’s the link: http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_...
And an excerpt I think is quite Ann Coulter:
“Which brings me to this week’s scandal about No Such Agency spying on “Americans.” I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.”
HeH
Comments on this entry are closed.