First Principles [Bush is certainly wiretapping the Democrats...

[Vitruvius]

Ever since Glenn Greenwald pointed out that Bush opposed legislation in 2002 that would have allowed him to wiretap US citizens without a warrant, the left has scratched their heads and wondered why. Why would he oppose such a law, and then go out and deliberately break it? Wouldn’t it have been easier to simply make it legal? The answer is pretty obvious, if you just make the right assumptions.

First, you have to stop giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. Liberals have the disturbing tendency to project their own basic decency on others, and that blinds them to the truly evil nature of the GOP. Don’t assume Bush is decent, honest, or has good intentions. He isn’t, he wasn’t, and he doesn’t. Instead, let the evidence be your guide. Assume Bush is equal parts messianic complex, pathological liar, and paranoid power monger.

Now ask yourself, why would Bush oppose a law which would give future Presidents the ability to listen in on telephone conversations without a court knowing? The question kind of answers itself, doesn’t it? Bush opposed the law because he didn’t want that surveillance capability to ever be used against him. Projecting his fundamental evilness on his enemies, Bush surely assumed that if they ever had the chance, the Democrats would spy on him. So the solution is simple. Keep the law on the books, but break it, and claim the Divine Right of Kings if caught. It was simply another one of the many rules that are meant for other people.

Bush is certainly listening in on the Democrats. Sadly, I know at least half the people who read this are going to argue with this assumption. My response is, how can anyone be so naïve as to believe that Bush deliberately broke the law and circumvented the judiciary to spy on American citizens, but still assume that he was so honest that he wouldn’t spy on the very American citizens who happened to be his political enemies? <SNIP>

The reason Bush deliberately kept the law on the books is because he wanted to tie the hands of anyone who follows him is office. The reason he broke it is in equal parts because he didn’t think he would get caught, and even if he did, he thought he would get away with it

MORE at The Daily Brew at http://www.simplefears.com

[dennis4868]

1. BUT BUT BUT.....

the MSM says he is spying in order to protect us.....

[tyedyeto]

2. So far...

"The reason he broke it is in equal parts because he didn’t think he would get caught, and even if he did, he thought he would get away with it"
he has gotten away with it. However, I have faith that very soon, this will come back and bite him in the arse.

[natrat]

3. they have neutered the opposition through blackmail,no they wont be caught

[Demeter]

4. "Publish and Be Damned!"

Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, Attributed; when the courtesan Harriette Wilson threatened to publish her memoirs and his letters.


Courtesy of Quotation Search

http://www.quotationspage.com/search.php3?Search=Publish+and+Be+Damned&startsearch=Search&Author=&C=mgm&C=motivate&C=classic&C=coles&C=poorc&C=lindsly&C=net&C=devils&C=contrib

[Boo Boo]

5. But if Bush sets the precedent, and the Supreme Court backs him up

on it, then there is nothing to stop a future President from doing the same thing.

I think people are fixating on the wrong part of the law here. Probable cause vs. reasonable suspicion is one aspect, but there is another: the law requires that you identify the target of the search. You have to say, "I want a warrant to search this person/entity, and here is what I expect to find." That's not what Bush is doing. He is monitoring all communications. The NSA's technology works by searching through everything, sort of like Google, except with telephones, email, faxes...

It is not possible to get a warrant for what Bush is doing, and the proposed law in question would not have changed that fact in any way. Bush is conducting a type of surveillance that is prohibited by law. In order to allow the issuing of warrants for what he is doing you'd have to get rid of the 4th Amendment.

Bush is violating his oath of office. He's violating the Constitution that he swore to uphold. The only defense he has is his claim that the Constitution does not apply to the President. Or, perhaps more accurately put, that his authority as "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces trumps other parts of the Constitution. He's saying that the President doesn't need a warrant if he claims that he's defending the nation, and that this authority is unchecked by any other branch of government.

Obviously, if the Supreme Court were to agree with that notion, then it would apply to any future President.

[Sadie5]

6. How many times will Bush

be allowed to pass under the wire. Everyday is like a sideshow with this bunch of thieving crooks.

[ixion]

8. That was my thought. as well n/t

[chaz4jazz]

7. Interesting coincidence

Remember when the Anthrax Scare took place? It was around the time that the illegal eavesdropping began. And whose offices were "attacked" by anthrax mailbombs? Why, the Democratic leadership in Congress, that's who. And who came into these offices, cleared them of any living soul, closed doors and began their "cleanup"? Why, agents of the Federal government. And could they have been snooping and placing sophisticated eavesdropping equipment into these offices? Why not? Could the Antrax have actually been mailed by agents of the government acting on orders from the WH? Who knows. We never did find out who sent the Anthrax - strains of which were traced to military labs.

Just a conspiracy theory, eh.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. I figured that out when I first heard of the illegal wiretaps

I might be generous enough to say that Bush ordered folks to listen for terrorist chatter, but as a "by the way" he said to be sure to include anything the Democrats are saying. Nixon's dirty tricks and tapes-oh yeah, this is part of a pattern for a party that has degenerated from one of freedom and free land to a gang of thugs out to bully the world.