'we're at war' is not an excuse for disobeying our laws

[mopaul]

it's like the all encompassing excuse for any atrocity or act of treason.

[madokie]

1. For this 'pig' farmer it is, apparently.

[still_one]

2. couldn't agree more

that is why the emphasis should be NOT on the spying/wire taps per seh, but the refusal to get a warrant for them, which is what the law dictates. In fact they have up to 15 days after the tap has been instituted to obtain the warrant. No excuse, a clear violation of law

Will the Democrats do their job this time?

I suspect not

[abluelady]

3. When and How Can We Change The Word War

We're not at war. We're occupying a foreign country and the people who live there want us out so they are fighting us. Enough is enough already. I can't help but wonder if we are never going to pull out of Iraq while Bush is president so he can use the term "war" over and over and over. I wish one Dem would stand up and say it is an occupation. WTF is wrong with us.

Why doesn't the administration listen in on farmers buying fertilizer. Isn't that what the Oklahoma bomber used when blowing up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Fighting terror is not any different than fighting crime, fighting drugs, etc. Laws are out there for finding criminals, which is what terrorists are. This idiot is not above the law.

[Mr.Green93]

4. There IS NO WAR!

We are not at war. Everything he has done is illegal. The "war on terror" is a delusion from the mind of a maniac.

[ixion]

5. exactly, show me the Declaration of War, or stop saying "we're at war"

because it just ain't so.

[FloridaPat]

6. Especially when he starts the wars himself.

[ROakes1019]

7. self-ordained war

This point always gets me, too. He started this war, probably with Kove's advice, so he could be a war president, knowing war presidents tend to get re-elected. Now he justifies every abuse as our being at war. He starts a war so he can do whatever he wants in the name of being at war.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. Except when they are asked to adhere to Geneva Conventions, then there is

suddenly "no war".

[gulliver]

9. But, it's got to be in the constitution somewhere.

Surely there is some section of the Constitution or somewhere in the case law where it says "Laws should be interpreted differently if the president says the magic words." Why doesn't Bush just say what he means, "Being at war means the president gets some leeway when it comes to obeying laws." If he said it out loud like that, people would see what he really means.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. No, he means "being at war means president = supreme emperor"

Leeway hell. "We can do whatever we want."

[gulliver]

13. No matter how he says it, it will sound bad. By saying...

... "We're at war," he is implying that there is something self-evident in those words that make it OK for him to skirt (even break) the law. It isn't self-evident at all. The law is the law.

[bigtree]

11. laws have to be enforced to mean anything to the lawbreakers

so long as Congress turns their backs on their own legislation and authority Bush will continue to stand on their tiny heads.

[Skidmore]

12. Yeah, what mopaul said, and especially since we are ILLEGALLY

at war, it's no excuse to break the law either.