1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Domestic Spying - good, bad or indifferent?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by pjmrt, Dec 21, 2005.

Check all that apply - elaborate why or why not:

  1. Bush overstepped his authority in permitting domestic wiretaps.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Bush acted in the best interests of American citizens

    17 vote(s)
    38.6%
  3. Domestic spying is a necessary evil in today's world.

    16 vote(s)
    36.4%
  4. Domestic spying is a severe infringement on our basic freedoms.

    14 vote(s)
    31.8%
  5. The system for court permission for domestic spying is too cumbersome and slow to be effective.

    15 vote(s)
    34.1%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    I guess there is something to be said for the argument that only those with something to hide or wish to retain the right to do something they need to hide in the future, should fear the easdropping.

    But I guess, while agreeing with that premise, say that we need a government with less power, not more. Because power can shift quickly, especially the more centralized it is, and today's patriot could end up tomorrow's suspect.

    But correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't it a democratic presidency and a democrat appointed FBI director that obtained and screened a whole lot of IRS data, spying on people -- probably without any search warrant, and for political purposes? Something like 20000 people investigated solely because of their political views?
     
  2. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    pj, lots of presidents, Republican and Democrat have done the same thing. It doesn't make it right.

    Without going back to find the post, I believe the comment was made that Clinton and/or people who had been part of his administration have said that the president has power to do such things. Of course they would. Because IF (really big if) Hillary would be president in 2008, they would want to uphold the power of the presidency that has built up during Bush's term. Presidential power ebbs and flows in relation to congress. Always has. We are at a high point right now. It is always problematic when Congress and the White House are held by the same party. Generally, they want to give their man as much power as possible, but always in the back of their mind is the fear that the next person to sit in the oval office will be from the other party.
     
  3. juan ellitinez

    juan ellitinez Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,982
    0
    Jan 31, 2003
    so whats your opinion on the Newt Gingrich situation back in the 90's?? High Crime or just political hijinx????
     
  4. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    With your first comment, I agree totally. A rarity to be sure.

    Your second comment, I agree but I think there is a lot more to it. Executive power oscillates a little, but I maintain it is trending upward overall. Add into that all federal power, that is definitely trending upward. So I see federal power as increasing, and among federal power, that power being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. I do not see either of these as good.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page