Slashdot Mirror
Poll Finds Mixed Support for Domestic Wiretaps
aspenbordr writes "The NYTimes reports that Americans are growing more and more concerned about the tradeoff between 'fighting terrorism' and civil liberties. Forty-seven percent of those polled responded they they did not support 'wiretapping in order to reduce the threat of terrorism'." From the article: "Mr. Bush, at a White House press conference yesterday, twice used the phrase 'terrorist surveillance program' to describe an operation in which the administration has eavesdropped on telephone calls and other communications like e-mail that it says could involve operatives of Al Qaeda overseas talking to Americans. Critics say the administration could conduct such surveillance while still getting prior court approval, as spelled out in a 1978 law intended to guard against governmental abuses."
You say Clinton was under attack constantly by republicans? Look at the Dems going against bush. It's just as bad if not far worse. The Rep's didn't have the 88% of the media backing them like the Dem's do. (That's right, 12% of the media can be considered more conservative than liberal. Explanation is in the rebuttal by fox to the "documentary" called "out foxed" if you want my source. It's pretty undeniable so don't write it off just because you don't like fox.)
And as far as Clinton Purjuring himself, that was plenty documented and shown in news... He lied under oath. That's called Purjury. Duh. Just because he wasn't tried for it doesnt mean it wasn't true. The whole thing was pretty stupid anyway. Everyone wanted to impeach him and then, what, one person actually voted to remove him from office? It was all just a big "lets see how bad we can embarrass Clinton" ordeal. They SHOULD have stuck to the issues like purjury IMO. Having an affair in office isn't exactly illegal in any sense. Maybe it's against the code of conduct and maybe morally it's sick (anyone who cheats on their wife should have their manhood removed IMO), but it wasn't "illegal" per`se.
Until anyone can prove somethign Bush did was illegal, he is innocent and that's the way it works. The closest thing to actually "illegal" he did was ordering the wiretapping and it's yet to be seen if that even WAS illegal. If it was, then he should deal with the consequences because otherwise every president from now on will have the authority to violate our rights. If it wasn't illegal then he "wasn't violating" our rights. There are circumstances laid out that call for measures like this to be taken, it just needs to be proved that this was one of those circumstances. They need to show exactly who it was done to and justify every single one of them and prove it was probably cause or something to that effect. There shouldn't be any blanket statements involved.
LOL, I'm just glad this country doesnt operate on trial-by-opinion though because it's sure true that every president would be removed from office if that were the case.