At present the way the law is written - having to get court authoruty before wire tapping - did the President commit a crime by going around this? I know it's been said that he was given the authority by congress after 9/11 but I can't seem to find anything pertaining to such an act. Also, it's been said that the Patriot Act gives him the power to do so - still, I can't find the section the gives him such power. In a quote Bush he said a This is his justification. The way the law is presetly written - and I would think that anything that allows the President to pretty much screw established law [FISA court ] should be spelled out in no uncertian terms leaving no room for doubt - did this president break the law?
The President also has the power, if you sees you on the street, to ask you for $100 to help fund our effort in catching terrorists. The punk already took $40 from me the other day and the remaining 67 cents from my pockets just now.. - N
I'll try and make this simple for all the stupid ppl out there: Breaking the law = committing a crime Law = FISA FISA = no wiretapping of citizens without a warrant Bush = wiretapping citizens without warrants Bush = committing a crime Did bush commit a crime? Uhhh, yes. Should this be ok just because he is president and we should be all scared of terrorists? Not in the USA.
Would anyone consider his actions to be an impeachable offense? Why or why not [even if there’s no chance it would happen.]
If a Clinton got impeached for a blowjob, Bush should be impeached for what he did without question. I know there's a double standard, but this is just so off the wall i don't see how EVEN republicans can condone this!
My view is that intent, scope, etc need to be investigated first, then we can decide if we need to talk impeachment. Independent investigation must be performed. If the scope of the spying is larger than has been suggested, or if there was direct intent to subvert or avoid the law....I think impeachment is the rational consequence. Obviously, from my post above my feeling is that an independent investigation would indeed lead to such conclusions. That is why the administration opposes one.
In this country, even Bush is still entitled to his Civil and Miranda rights. I personally believe Bush and others have committed criminal AND civil wrongdoing, but even they must have their day(s) in court; like it or not, executive priviledge exists, and until such "stonewalling" and refusing to be deposed by the Congress or ANY Grand Jury is decidedly illegal (by Bill of Law, and Supreme Court opinion), Bush may very well get through the remainder of his term without answering a single question on record in front of ANY of his peers; even if both Houses become Democratically controlled later this year and they start immediately to investigate the mounting allegations of wrongdoing by members of the Executive Branch _AND_ DoD _AND_ others. Bush and Cheney should've been impeached long ago, in either case, for obstructing justice. I think there's even a collar for Wolfy, Rummy, Rice, Rove and (dare I say it) Powell, and others involved with the PNAC "hegemony scandal." ... Dear World, We're sorry. We didn't vote for him either. Love, The other 51% of the USA
Bush should be impeached, if not for the wire-tapping thing, then for criminal negligence when he invaded Iraq without a plan "B". Or a plan "A", for that matter.
...and outing Valerie Plame. I've heard some convincing reasons why impeachment isn't the answer, it would be a huge distraction from terrorism and a media circus. He should resign instead, it's just the decent thing to do.