Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
There has never been a war in our history, where the executive branch did not violate the law in some fashion. This is no different, and in fact requires such actions even more due to the nature of the conflict. If you are comfortable wrapping yourself up in the cloak of indignation over such violations please do so, and perhaps it will keep you warm while watching images from some future terrorist attack on CNN.
Silent enim leges inter arma. - Cicero
|
I'm not buying that either. argument by hypothesis that if the president is forced to follow the law (something that every president swears to do upon inauguration) somehow we're certain to end up being attacked. To center upon this particular individual must mean that they actually had some evidence or suspicion to begin with. I've heard alot of talk about how the feds have ALWAYS had the ability to go to the FISA court for warrants and taps which means that they should have been able to get one for this guy as well.
as to your quote by cicero, its been warned by many government officials throughout our history that 'in times of war' is when we must be most diligent in the conduct of our representatives and to ensure that they do not use 'in times of war' to the detriment of the constitutional rights of its citizens. Using that quote to justify possible violations of the same document.
The constitution is supposed to be a document that limits government authority, not citizens rights.