Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I know what I would do. If I had the responsibility to secure our boarders and our national interest and was faced with the dilemma of possibly violating the 4th amendment when the violation is in a legal gray area - I would act to save lives, while the details got worked out. I think that is what Bush did, and I think the American public knows that. To date, we still have no person who has come forward and proved he or sha has been harmed by the "illegal" wire-taps.
Also, DC seeming to suggest that Bush and Republican have no concern over the 4th amendment, is a bit over the top, in my opinion.
|
We have no idea what Bush did between 2003 and 2006.....therein lies the problem. You seem to assume there was no abuse. I believe Congress has a right to know, even if only in closed session.
Bush and Gonzales claimed that the Exec branch had legal authority to act outside FISA and REFUSED to share any information with either the Repub Congress (which really didnt press very hard) or the Dem Congress, and the Judiciary (FISA court), both of which have oversight responsibility to ensure that there was not abuse by the Exec.
This new bill restores that Constitutional oversight. I dont see how that threatens national security. It still allows a wiretap before FISA approval if it can be justified based on the immediacy of the potential threat.