George Bush: "I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live. I strongly disagree with this decision
( Read more... )
God, if only! Not holding my breath, though, because no matter how much W ride roughshod over pesky little documents like the Constitution, it's apparently nowhere near as bad as getting involved with an intern. ::headdesk::
Ideally, yes. Wantonly ignoring the Fourth Amendment is a pretty big deal. However, I can't even come close to imagining this House voting for articles of impeachment. It won't happen for many reasons, the biggest of which is that this is supposedly a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.* There's not much in the way of public outrage, and the Representatives simply have to say, "Well, he was overreaching and maybe he made a mistake, but he was trying to protect the country!!elventy!!1!" Nixon, OTOH, was bugging his political enemies, which is just tacky and pretty hard to defend.
*Whether blanket wiretapping of anyone who calls, say, Islamabad is an effective tool to combat terrorism is an unanswered question. Let's just say that I have my doubts.
I am still boggling that the data mining part of the case was put aside because it's even more sooper-dooper sekrit. So it can't be reviewed and ruled upon by the judicial branch because it's too secret. Hell in a handbasket.Yeah, the state secrets doctrine is, uh, a little on the stupid side. I mean, courts seal documents, they receive documents in camera without the other side even getting a look (as they did in this case -- the judge referenced unpersuasive in camera documents). There are ways to do this and keep actual top secret material secret. The conundrum is classified illegal activity is still illegal... and classified. What trumps
( ... )
So... impeachment?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Ideally, yes. Wantonly ignoring the Fourth Amendment is a pretty big deal. However, I can't even come close to imagining this House voting for articles of impeachment. It won't happen for many reasons, the biggest of which is that this is supposedly a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.* There's not much in the way of public outrage, and the Representatives simply have to say, "Well, he was overreaching and maybe he made a mistake, but he was trying to protect the country!!elventy!!1!" Nixon, OTOH, was bugging his political enemies, which is just tacky and pretty hard to defend.
*Whether blanket wiretapping of anyone who calls, say, Islamabad is an effective tool to combat terrorism is an unanswered question. Let's just say that I have my doubts.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment