Why does Bush ignore the Constitution?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - 4th amendment to the constitution





President Bush is determined to spy on us without a court order. Let's get something straight; neither I nor any other liberal I know of has any serious objection to government eavesdropping in the legitimate pursuit of criminal activity, including potential terror attacks.





Here's the problem. Bush first said that warrants were obtained for all wiretapping; that was false. Now he says that we're at war and he doesn't need a warrant. But why won't he explain his reasons to an appropriate court and get a warrant? How are we to know that he's not spying simply because he has a "gut feeling"? Or for political reasons or even for personal enrichment? Should I trust him? Should anybody? The constitution says that we don't have to; he must satisfy a court that there is probable cause to believe that the person being wire-tapped might be doing something wrong.





I don't trust the government that much - regardless of who the President is - that's why the constitution says what it says.





If a President has that kind of authority over us then the nation the founders created is dead and we are merely feudal vassals. It makes little difference to the serf whether he's enslaved by a domestic tyrant or a foreign one, the revolt will be the same.

Why does Bush ignore the Constitution?
"Why does Bush ignore the constitution?"








Because Bush can not read.
Reply:Can* Report It

Reply:The fact is that Bush has never pledged his allegiance to the United States.





When he swore to defend and uphold our once-great nation's Constitution, his fingers were crossed behind his back.





He makes more money from his buisness dealing with the Saudi Royal family than he does as president.








Three guesses who he really pledges allegiance to...
Reply:Bush ignores the constitution because in his little pee brain he is the decider... the supreme ruler.
Reply:Why don't you tell that to the American family of Elian Gonzales. Clinton did a lot worse with a lot less reason. BTW, what's your plan for making sure we know what the terrorists plan to do? Most of you Bush haters are all complain, no answers.
Reply:Osama Bin Laden Invited to the White House?


Christopher Ruddy


Thursday, June 6, 2002


Osama Bin Laden Invited to the White House!


Now that sounds more than far-fetched. And certainly President Bush would rather see bin Laden's head on a platter than to have him as a dinner guest.





But a senior former CIA agent who served in the Middle East for almost two decades fighting terrorists thinks that bin Laden may believe that, like fellow terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, he may find himself someday a guest of a future U.S. president.





This former CIA officer, Robert Baer, recently wrote the explosive book "See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism."





Baer writes that when he sees Arafat "standing in the Rose Garden at the White House or when I hear that a CIA director has met privately with him at some desert tent, I wonder sometimes if Arafat's example doesn't make Osama bin Laden consider that he, too, might become a statesman in time."





Baer's point seems fantastic. However, we now know for a certainty that Arafat has masterminded and backed too many terrorist acts to count, from the Munich massacre to jet hijackings and worse.





A veteran of the Mideast, Baer knows Arafat. Baer writes that while "terrorist organizations operate like the most complicated interlocking directorate ever created," he discovered that many of the trails of these groups and their activities "converge at the feet of Yasser Arafat."





Yet today our liberal media prefer to describe Arafat as a freedom fighter. Baer's observations are deemed politically incorrect.





That may be one reason his book, with many important revelations, with a foreword by Seymour Hersh and published by Random House, has gotten such little media attention since it hit bookstores earlier this year.





Perhaps a companion book might have been titled: "Speak No Evil: Why A Veteran CIA Officer Should Keep His Mouth Shout About How Bill Clinton Undermined America's National Security."





While Baer fairly criticizes problems in the CIA and its handling of terrorism from the days of the Reagan and Bush administrations, he also clearly shows that the infrastructure of the CIA's ability to fight terrorism completely collapsed under Bill Clinton.





Here are just some of Baer's key points:





In 1991, the CIA closed up its activities in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. During the Clinton years things got even worse, when CIA operatives around the globe were directed away from spying on the bad guys and told to start worrying about "human rights, economic globalization, the Arab-Israel conflict." By 1995, the Clinton administration thought spy operations were so unimportant that a CIA analyst who had never served as a spy or even overseas was made director of operations, the CIA's chief spy.





Iran remains a major player in the terrorist world. Baer says that in 1982, Arafat "had put his entire worldwide terrorist network at Iran's disposal." Baer believes that the Iranians were clearly the culprits behind the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in the early 1980s. In 1996, bin Laden formed an alliance with Iran. The purpose of the alliance was simple: Attack America.





The Clinton White House's gross negligence and malfeasance was demonstrated by its handling of Saddam Hussein. Baer states that in 1995, top staffers at the National Security Council prevented a planned coup by Iraqi military leaders against Saddam Hussein. Baer was the top CIA man in Northern Iraq working with Iraqi dissidents.


Baer also reveals just how much the Clinton White House sought to protect Hussein.


In 1995 Baer was summoned by the CIA back from Iraq to Washington. Upon reporting to CIA headquarters, a CIA superior told him why he was called home: "Tony Lake [Bill Clinton's national security adviser] ordered the FBI to investigate you for trying to assassinate Saddam Hussein."





After months of investigation, the charges were found to be baseless and dropped.





Like many other CIA veterans who were thwarted from doing their jobs by their own government, Baer retired. Still, the CIA gave him due recognition. He was awarded its Career Intelligence Medal.





But the coddling of Hussein was not isolated to just targeting Baer and removing him from Iraq.





In fact, the Clinton White House clearly decided to keep and maintain Saddam Hussein in power. [Note: I suspected this back in 1998 and wrote about it in "Maybe Saddam Actually Likes Bill Clinton."]





In one of the most important revelations in "See No Evil," Baer reveals that Saddam Hussein might well have been deposed by his own troops, especially if the economic sanctions had been rigorously applied.





But with U.S. complicity, Saddam Hussein was able to sell millions of barrels of Iraqi oil by shipping them overland through NATO ally Turkey.





During the mid-'90s Baer says, the smuggled oil through Turkey "was a lifeline for Saddam, who used the money to fund his intelligence services and Special Republican Guards – the forces that kept him alive."





The pipeline of smuggled oil was no hidden, disputed fact. Baer reports the Iraqi oil trucks stretched back anywhere from 20 miles to 70 miles as they waited to cross into Turkey.





Baer was baffled. He writes, "What I couldn't understand was why the White House didn't intervene." He says the U.S. could easily have closed down the truck pipeline into Turkey.





"It was almost as if the White House wanted Saddam to have a little walking around money," Baer writes.





Baer concludes that the Clinton administration "helped Saddam pay for his praetorian guard, just what you'd expect of a clever superpower that was secretly supporting the local despot."





Why would Bill Clinton, our president, do such a thing? Why would he help Saddam Hussein at the very time his public rhetoric against him was so strong?





Nobody who has studied Bill Clinton should be surprised by his duplicity. The facts show, and future historians will discover, that Bill Clinton was no friend of the United States.





Editor's Note: Get your copy of "See No Evil" at a great price – CLICK HERE NOW.
Reply:You're going to have to point out telecommunications language in the Constitution to make a valid point. And since telecom is federally regulated, why wouldn't the federal government have access to the lines to secure our safety?





Unless of course, you are a criminal with something to hide.
Reply:First, the spying is on international communications to or from suspected terrorists. They're not spying on your call to your Aunt Betty in Nebraska.





The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It gives the job of waging war to the Commander-in-chief, otherwise known as the president. Part of waging war is conducting intelligence on your enemies. If a terrorist in Sudan picks up his phone and calls his fellow terrorist in NY to discuss their plans to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, and the gov't is monitoring the caller's (in Sudan) phone line, is that violating the 4th amendment of the person in NY?





Another argument I've heard is that the 4th amendment is aimed at preventing abuses from law enforcement, not to stop the gov't from national security activities.





Added:





I'm not wrong.A panel of 5 former FISA judges "said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order. " See the full article below