<p>“homeland security” sounds positively Soviet to my ear.</p>
<p>I’m waiting for the administration to refer to Iraq as “The Great Patriotic War.”</p>
<p>Good to see that the CC “dads” are concerned about the truly important stuff. The evildoers are no doubt terrified of semantics-bombers.</p>
<p>I’m sure - at least as terriifed of people going through their bank statements ;)</p>
<p>“Honey, I thought you were going to get those rocket launchers with the Discover card so we could get the travel miles!?”</p>
<p>No doubt about it, terrorism is serious business But what explains the Adminstration’s hyper-obsession with wordsmithing?</p>
<p>Many thanks to the Supreme Court for continuing to screw things up the way they have for the past 60 years. </p>
<p>In any case, GWB did the right thing. Do what your oath requires to protect the country and let the true patriots on the court tell you whether you’ve mashed someone’s toes in the process.</p>
<p>We need one more liberal to retire.</p>
<p>The oath each President swears to in taking office:</p>
<p>“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”</p>
<p>dadx, let me guess:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>you already know your internet is being monitored, and you want to score positive points?</p></li>
<li><p>you think only “good guys” have rights? (like we always get the bad guys right???)</p></li>
<li><p>our commander right or wrong?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Keep guessing, you have one close to right. </p>
<p>I think the executive branch should do what is the appropriate thing without second guessing themselves on national security–thats the job of the courts. We have plenty of nutso hate-america-firsts around who’ll show up to defend any murderers whose rights might be violated. </p>
<p>If some of the security agencies in the report on the September 11 attacks had been more vigorous in pursuing leads instead of beaten down by years of throwing out good information, we might have two very nice buildings, 3000 more americans, and no lousy foreign war right now. Instead, we are where we are. Most of the pre 9/11 failings were failings of surveillance and will…much due to the sort of things we’re touching on in this thread. </p>
<p>I hope my internet is monitored. And yours too. Probably, though,the courts will succeed in preventing anyone from monitoring the dirty scoundrels who we need to get.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the whole problem with the “war” on terror. We expect them to play our way - use the internet, wear uniforms so we can find them in the crowd, act suspiciously…</p>
<p>When it was the executive which encroached on the courts recklessly? The executive has violated laws on the premise of, “If I say so (in the name of national security), it is right.” There’s a reason why SCOTUS reasserted itself; no man, nor president, is above the law. Had Bush had his way, we would’ve never found out about the massive intelligece failures to begin with.</p>
<p>How are the courts preventing us from monitoring the “dirty scoundrels who we need to get?” Magic Lantern, Carnivore, Echelon, and God knows what are all happily monitoring away, unhindered by the courts. The courts haven’t ruled on anything directly related to intelligence gathering. Your speculations are laughable at best.</p>
<p>According to an article in the Boston Globe a few months back, Prez Bush has claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when is interferes with his interpretation of the Constitution.</p>
<p>So Bush ignores or puts himself above the law, all the while strengthening executive power illegally. Clever man, but it’s still illegal, and I don’t know why anyone feels safer having the guvment reading your e-mails, listening to your phone conversations or looking at your bank statements. Hello Big Brother!!!</p>
<p>Allmusic - this is precisely why we need to protect, above all, the free press. If Bush/Cheney have their way, anyone who releases or publishes classified data should go to jail. So if the president - either the current one or one down the road - classifies totally illegal acts, no one could say anything, and no one would ever know, since the penalty for disclosure would become too onerous to bear. And then where are the courts? The courts become meaningless if there are no disputes to bring before them - no challenges brought before a Supreme Court to protect rights that citizens do not even know have been violated.</p>
<p>Is this what America really wants? That is how America would end - not with a bang, but a whimper. We wouldn’t end now, or perhaps in 20 years, but eventually the reasons we love our country would fade, and true patriotism would evolve into a petty jingoism, valuing loyalty above truth and freedom. If that were to happen, the flag would wave brightly, but the Constitution would be in tatters.</p>
<p>
As far as the “releasing” part is concerned, I sure hope that they want to put them in jail. If not, why have laws on the books that make it a crime? Even the Democrats are in agreement on this point. Are you saying that both Republicans and Democrats are wrong on this?</p>
<p>As far as the “publishing” part, perhaps you could provide a citation where either Bush or Cheney made such a statement? Please note that condemning an action is not the same as wanting to send the offending party to jail. Statements like this (and your over-the-top assertion that we are on the road to the end of our democracy) are just pure political hyperbole.</p>
<p>
Interestingly, you ignore the fact that SCOTUS totally ignored the will of Congress which explicitly stated that the courts did not have jurisdiction in this matter - which was within the right of Congress to mandate. I guess the separation of powers only applies when it it used to limit the Presidency.</p>
<p>FF: The Supreme Court frequently overturns laws that Congress makes. That’s their job when the laws are unconstitutional. They’re not being activists nor are they “limiting the powers” of Congress or of the Presidency. They are making sure that the Constitutional principles are upheld.</p>
<p>digmedia - true, but not in this case. They did not find the law that Congress passed to be unconstitutional - they just chose to ignore it. That’s a big difference.</p>
<p>FF, someone needs to limit this president, who is under the false assumption that his powers are limitless and that he can ignore the rule of law. </p>
<p>However, if Stevens dies in the next two and a half years, you may just get your wish, since there will then be no one left to balance the power grab of this president.</p>
<p>You know, I wonder if anyone has ever tried a one-party system before…</p>
<p>Mexico was under the control of the PRI for 71 years. Things turned out great down there, didn’t they?</p>
<p>Oh, yeah…</p>
<p>But you would never see the Europeans do anything like that, huh?</p>