tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post114860850461081358..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Lessons from JeffersonAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1148666078743693962006-05-26T11:54:00.000-06:002006-05-26T11:54:00.000-06:00Fortunately, we have a system of secret courts to ...Fortunately, we have a system of secret courts to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate surveillance, without alerting criminals or terrorists or foreign spies, that has worked well for nearly thirty years, and been accepted by presidents of both parties who successfully defended the nation from the Cold War *and* terrorism.<BR/><BR/>Too bad the Decider decided to go behind its back and hide the true nature of his activities even from the trustworthy, security-cleared judges prescribed by law to make sure the program isn't abused.<BR/><BR/>Now, why would he do that, I wonder... maybe he *knows* some of his activities are illegal and/or unconstitutional, and that's why he's hiding them, not just from the targets, but from legitimate American authority?<BR/><BR/><BR/>The funny thing is, some people in Congress are now trying to pass a law requiring him to obey the law he was already required to obey, and blatantly broke, and got away with breaking. Duh, if the law already says don't do something, and he breaks it, and you don't do anything, what good will it do passing *another* law to say "Um, really, we meant it, obey the law and don't do that!"?<BR/><BR/>Impeach him for the laws he has already broken. I'm not necessarily saying he should be removed from office - there's too much secrecy to really know what is going on, and anyway, it would be dishonest to put the verdict before the trial - but Congress needs to live up to their responsibility to investigate and try him, and discover the truth of his actions. He can't hide them from an impeachment proceeding - at least, not without creating the biggest constitutional crisis in the nation's history, openly and on the public stage.<BR/><BR/>There's more than sufficient grounds to believe that Bush *might* have committed crimes that would justify removing him from office - an impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment, and he'd have been indicted several times over already if the Justice Dept. didn't work for him and he didn't have immunity to any prosecution *except* impeachment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1148622150077799322006-05-25T23:42:00.000-06:002006-05-25T23:42:00.000-06:00Inquisitor, the President took an oath to protect ...Inquisitor, the President took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. To be blunt, if crude, urinating on it seems to be an odd way of going about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1148617719854584802006-05-25T22:28:00.000-06:002006-05-25T22:28:00.000-06:00Inquisitor Another of your statements that deserve...<B>Inquisitor</B> Another of your statements that deserve some questioning is the claim that Bush is doing this "to track down terrorists".<BR/><BR/>Really?<BR/><BR/>You know this for a fact?<BR/><BR/>See, I have nothing against Bush doing these things to track down terrorists. I just want to make sure that he is really tracking down terrorist and not doing other things with this power. With no oversite of any kind, he could be doing a lot of other things other than (or instead of) hunting for terrorists, and we would never know.<BR/><BR/>Cheney and Rove in particular seem to be particularly vicious and immoral individual who would have no problems using these powers for things other than hunting terrorists. In fact, i would not put it past them to <I>claim</I> to be hunting terrorists as a smoke screen for countless imaginable personal projects of theirs.<BR/><BR/>Without any oversite, we can't know.<BR/><BR/>That's the problem.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1148617117981367142006-05-25T22:18:00.000-06:002006-05-25T22:18:00.000-06:00Oddly, in this post, I made no criticism of Bush. ...Oddly, in this post, I made no criticism of Bush. I criticized some hypocrisy found in the claims of congressmen. However, the main point was a defense of the principles behind the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I could have saved a lot of writing by saying, I LIKE THE 4TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION -- ALOT." However, I think it is also useful to spend a few words stating why it makes sense for others to like it as well.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1148611403912580462006-05-25T20:43:00.000-06:002006-05-25T20:43:00.000-06:00Yes, by all means, the President overstepping his ...Yes, by all means, the President overstepping his authority to track down terrorists is exactly the same as congressmen trying to protect one of their own that took a $100,000 bribe. Sorry, I don't think so.<BR/><BR/>I'm not suggesting that the ends justify the means, but looking at the individual's intentions allows you to better choose the right people to demonize.<BR/><BR/>You could have saved alot of typing by just writing, "I HATE BUSH...ALOT...ALL THE TIME...oh, and congress doesn't like their offices to be searched."Curiosishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14499563937438812742noreply@blogger.com