Interesting,
the article does sort of contradict Clinton's actions setting precedent here, note from the last paragraph:

In an interview yesterday, Miss Gorelick acknowledged her testimony before Congress but said it pertained to presidential authority prior to 1994, when Congress expanded FISA laws.


I think more importantly then whether or these FISA changes make the situation that different, is the idea that it's OK for Bush to do something unconstitutional because a prior administration did. That thinking leaves a real bad taste in my mouth, I mean I understand legal precident and it's purpose, by the constitution is supposed to be followed and sort of keep the expanding government in line.

Reminds me of "animal farm" when "All animals are equal" ok gets qualified with "but some are more equal then others." They should have left that rule alone.

 

Just came across this article, from a hard-croe conservative, that relates to the discussion

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=47970

Quotes:
America was founded on the principle that it is right to sacrifice blood for liberty. It is telling that the Bush defenders make precisely the opposite argument, that it is right to sacrifice liberty in order to avoid the shedding of American blood. In this they are, like the Dear Leader, avowedly anti-American.

That George Bush is in open and repeated violation of his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is no longer debatable. In keeping with his many anti-constitutional actions, he has publicly declared that he has no way of knowing what is, and what is not constitutional.

 

It was wrong then and its wrong now. The President is exceeding his powers and violating the constitution, and that is not okay.

Between the warrantless searches, spying on American citizens, holding suspected criminals without bail or trial, and torture, this "peacetime president" is destroying my faith in democracy.

 

kill kill kill & benjamin

There is nothing illegal about what President Bush and the NSA did. From Presidential precident, informing certain members of Congress, to the link provided above about intelligence gathering nothing was done to violate the constitution. Sorry but the real issue here is who leaked this to the NYT because this is a HUGE security leak about defending this country and borders on treason for doing so. This leak is bigger than the non-leak of Valerie Plame and needs a full investigation.

It really scares me though that there are people in this country that want to actively hinder our government from keeping us safe. This really, really bothers me to think that people care more about the rights of potential terrorists than the rights of the innocent civilians that would otherwise be killed or wounded in an attack.

But let me ask you this. These intelligence methods prevented the bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge, saving countless #s of lives, and keeping the economy of NYC moving. Which would you prefer? Not collecting this intelligence and allowing the Brooklyn Bridge to be destroyed or doing what is necessary to protect this country. You both know I choose the latter...I wonder if you really do to.

 

FISA wiretap warrants are basically rubber stamps, which I have a problem with all by itself, but at least a court is there to keep watch on the watchers. Those warrants can even be issued retroactively, so the idea that Bush had to authorize warrantless wiretaps or risk not gathering intelligence is just plain wrong.

There are ways to police the nation and monitor threats that don't involve violating the constitution. I choose freedom AND security; you apprently only think that both those things are necessary for Iraqis but not Americans.

 

Again there is absolutely nothing that has been done to violate any American under the Constitution. You are choosing freedom but not security. Without security there is not freedom.

You also forgot to answer my question.

 

I didn't forget. It was so absurd that I assumed it was rhetorical.

The answer is that I choose liberty and security at the same time, as the framers and forefathers intended. I choose a government of checks and balances. I choose not to allow Bush to morph the presidency into an autocracy without being questioned. I choose to speak, and write, and think, and disagree, and not be scrutinzed by the government for doing so.

Platitudes like "freedom isn't free" make me feel a little sick. The use of a silly expression that merely sounds deeply philosophical to explain away transgressions and crimes is unacceptable to me. It minimizes a complex idea to the point that its unrecognizable.

 

Then you are sacrificing one for the other. As security needs to be increased to counter the threat of terrorism there are going to be cases where liberties need to be decreased. This does not mean for every single citizen in the US, only for the few that could potentially be involved in attacks on this country.

If you choose to protect the liberties of these potential terrorists then you are doing so at the expense of the security of this nation and the millions of more civil liberties of law abiding citizens.

 

Spock said it best in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

"Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. "

 

no one would wish for the destruction of the brooklyn bridge, or any attack on our country, but I think the question you posed in sort of flawed.

I do not accept that information gathering technique 'X' can definitivly prevent an attack. A determined terrorist will research the methods of their enemy and plan against them. It seems to me that when we let the government search our bags, terrorists learn to hide explosives in their buttholes, or whatever, and then we're just having our bags searched without any real benefit, but at the loss of my ability to get midget porn through an airport without embarrasment. and that sucks, cuz I like me some midget porn.

I know this sounds like conspiracy theory, but the government is alot less interested in protecting us citizens and alot more interested in controlling them then your question assumes.