Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
Most of the complaining about civil liberties is done for purely partisan reasons. I would say that 90% of the people complaining would not be complaining if the President was a democrat. By the same token, if a democrat was President, you would have a ton of republicans screaming that our civil liberties are being taken away. This is just your usual partisan nonsense.
The truth of the matter is that the government has no choice. If they catch some terrorist overseas and they confiscate his cell phone and computer and discover he has been in contact with people over here, our government has to investigate these people immediately. They can't take their time and hope to stumble upon something. They have to investigate these people vigorously. This may involve wiretaps and it may involve arresting these people before the investigation is complete. They don't have a choice. Would it be better to let them blow up a building first? I don't think so. By the way, I don't think the Constitution defined "probable cause". It talks about probable cause but I don't think it actually defines it. With the Patriot Act, they still have to have probable cause but the burden is not as high as it was in the past. Just because the burden is not as high, that does not mean that the Constitution has been violated in any way.
|
Bush has done some stuff that I think that he thinks is genuinely good for the country. I do not believe he is an evil man. But like some of our enemies, he is driven. But some of his administrations actions, things he truely believes are the right thing to do, are clearly on the boundaries of infringing upon individual's rights. Bush has clearly overstepped his executive boundaries in some cases. A conservative supreme court has already shot one of his attempts down, with conservatives going against his administration's contentions. I understand his frustration. He badly wants to protect the country and do what HE believes is right.
Example: If my daughter was murdered in a most cruel manner, and the accussed was found guilty, but because of evidence obtained illegally, the convicted had to be retried... Upon retrial, there was not enough evidence to convict.
I would personally devote my life to trying this individual myself. My life as a human would most likely end at this point. I most likely would not be able to function until justice was done. (I use most likely as I would probably have to be counseled at this point and I am pretty sure I am not Christ-like enough to handle myself) After justice, as I saw it, was done, I would then be prosecuted and probably spend my life in prison.
The bottom line: I did wrong. I would take matters into my own hands if I did not get justice, and this IS wrong. And I would and should suffer the consequences. As much sympathy as I might get from the general public, I would still be wrong. I am pretty sure (not trying to be macho but I would most likely try and kill the accussed), I would do something against the law and I should be punished.
I think Bush is presented with this type of dilemma, only he does not see what he is doing as skirting the law of the land. I think he badly wants to make things right. I do not believe he thinks what he is doing is wrong, even if the Supreme Court finds his administration's attempts to make the country safer unconstitutional, because it is what HE believes is right.