Name: J****b S****k
Comment: "I don't really understand your point of view. Please explain yourself."
Okay. I'll explain myself.
You are a fucking imbecile.
This is a link to a story in the far right-wing Washington Times.
It's not my "point of view", it's the "point of view" of Bruce Fein. I never expressed a "point of view" in this post except that the Washington Times is right-wing. Is that the "point of view" you don't understand? Because they are right-wing. There's no dispute over that.
Bruce Fein is a fucking wingnut who is writing in the wingnuttiest venue imaginable.
That's the point of me posting this. That even wingnuts (the ones who aren't TOTALLY FUCKING INSANE, that is) think that Bush has gone too far.
Did you read the part where I said "From the wingnut Washington Times, written by the former Associate Deputy Attorney General under President Reagan. Disgruntled wingnuts, please contact them directly to complain, please."?
What part of that didn't you understand? Are you really this fucking stupid? How do you manage to remember to breathe? Your stupidity is numbing my fucking brain.
here's the original post:
From the wingnut Washington Times, written by the former Associate Deputy Attorney General under President Reagan. Disgruntled wingnuts, please contact them directly to complain, please. Why do they hate America so?
President Bush Presents A Clear & Present Danger To The Rule Of Law. By Bruce Fein
"According to President George W. Bush, being president in wartime means never having to concede co-equal branches of government have a role when it comes to hidden encroachments on civil liberties.
Last Saturday, he thus aggressively defended the constitutionality of his secret order to the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the international communications of Americans whom the executive branch speculates might be tied to terrorists. Authorized after the September 11, 2001 abominations, the eavesdropping clashes with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), excludes judicial or legislative oversight, and circumvented public accountability for four years until disclosed by the New York Times last Friday. Mr. Bush's defense generally echoed previous outlandish assertions that the commander in chief enjoys inherent constitutional power to ignore customary congressional, judicial or public checks on executive tyranny under the banner of defeating international terrorism, for example, defying treaty or statutory prohibitions on torture or indefinitely detaining United States citizens as illegal combatants on the president's say-so.
President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms."