All things Bush is evil.. yeah yeah...whatever
by aliveandkickin, Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:31:34 PM EDT
Don't pay attention to my title, it was solely to grab ya attention. (No really it was, god's honest truth :) ).
SO I was thinking, as a thought popped into my head and lord knows this election many do, heh. That I still believe in the core decency of the presidency. I mean yeah some have let us down, but I'm not yet ready to give up on that bedrock of American pride, that we are decent deep down in our heart as people and that a President is no floozy position given to floozies-- After all , when all is said and done they are elected
Anyways, with all this talk about presidential power on FISA and Bush saying that in war time he needs to be given latitude, if he deems it worthy of a wiretap. And now we have Obama saying clearly, " trust me folks" I will be diligent about it and watch for abuses. Do you see the following scenario any different w/ Obama than say?
Scene 1 ACT 1: Bush is in the oval office and has meeting w/ his national security team and they come to him and say " look we have this guy we suspect (insert some proof) that could be dangerous to the country". And it happens to be weak proof as far courts go, yet good enough to cause `reasonable' concern and they need to explore it further. Upon which President Bush grants a wiretap (not like they asking him to put the guy in front of a firing squad) but later is proved "hey it was not what we thought". Would bush be wrong in making that call initially?... i.e. and yet be called a violation of rights?
Scene 2, ACT 1: Now reverse it. Obama's security team is asking us Obama for permission to wiretap and they make a mistake ( mere mortals after all)and it falls into the same trap as bush's call --- are you willing to ask that Obama give up that power? Would Obama really be wrong in taking the side of caution and allowing the wiretap?
I guess what I'm wondering is what is different in Bush asking for that authority and Obama saying trust me I will be careful w/ that authority? Just because he is a Democrat?... the way this country is divided on party affiliation, the other side does not trust our President , like we don't trust theirs.
Should we not at some point then ask ourselves --- Since Bush had 49%( typical split in republican voters vs. democratic voters) of this country willing to give him power / trust him on FISA( to override w/ NSA domestic spying).
Why then we are hollering and hooting at him (bush) w/ such power--- when we are asking (we ---the other 49% of the voter's choice - democrats) to allow Obama be the guardian of such power.
Its not like each side trusts the other anymore in this country, right? Why not end that cycle...Update [2008-6-22 2:10:55 by aliveandkickin]: WHOA MANY ARE CONFUSED w/warant less wire taps ( specifically warrant less and FISA). Warrant less wire taps right now are under NSA Domestic spy Program by an executive order . Thats not FISA. We are trying to bring this dosmetic spy program into FISA!
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy The Act came into public prominence in December 2005 following publication by the New York Times of an article that described a program of warrantless domestic wiretapping ordered by the Bush administration and carried out by the National Security Agency since 2002 (a subsequent Bloomberg article suggested that this may have already begun by June 2000). Many critics have asserted that the Administration's warrantless spying program is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution against warrantless search and a criminal violation of FISA