On eve of hearing, split on spying (Repukes not marching in lockstep)

[Mr_Spock]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/05/on_eve_of_hearing_split_on_spying/

On eve of hearing, split on spying

Some prominent conservatives break with Bush

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | February 5, 2006

WASHINGTON -- As hearings begin tomorrow on President Bush's domestic spying program, increasing numbers of prominent conservatives are breaking with the administration to say the program is probably illegal and to sharply criticize Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's legal theory that a wartime president can override a law.

The skeptics include leaders of conservative activist groups, well-known law professors, veterans of Republican administrations, former GOP members of Congress, and think tank analysts. The conservatives said they are speaking out because they object to the White House's attempt to portray criticism of the program as partisan attacks.

''My criteria for judging this stuff is what would a President Hillary do with these same powers," said Paul M. Weyrich, the influential writer and leader of the Free Congress Foundation, a think tank. ''And if I'm troubled by what she would do, then I have to be troubled by what Bush could do, even though I have more trust in Bush than I do in Hillary."

Shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush secretly authorized the military to wiretap American's international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining court permission, as a law requires. After the program's existence was disclosed in December, Bush contended that his wartime powers give him the authority to override the law requiring warrants.

...

Interesting...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. I Spy, great show, perhaps one

of gw's favorites.....

[rodeodance]

2. 'My criteria for judging this stuff is what would a President Hillary do ?

you have got to be kidding!!---I see this as not a concern with the constitution!!---geesh.


...''My criteria for judging this stuff is what would a President Hillary do with these same powers," said Paul M. Weyrich, the influential writer and leader of the Free Congress Foundation, a think tank. ''And if I'm troubled by what she would do, then I have to be troubled by what Bush could do, even though I have more trust in Bush than I do in Hillary."

Shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush secretly authorized the military to wiretap American's international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining court permission, as a law requires. After the program's existence was disclosed in December, Bush contended that his wartime powers give him the authority to override the law requiring warrants.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to open a hearing into the legality of the program tomorrow, with Gonzales scheduled to testify all day. In advance of his testimony, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino defended the program against its conservative critics.

Bush, she said, ''has received strong support for the program from many different people. And while some may disagree, despite the extensive legal analysis provided by the Department of Justice, the president is strongly committed to this lawful program."

[TankLV]

7. And I would trust President Hillary a MILLION times more than any repuke.

But that is the whole point.

If the shoe was on the other foot.

But these War Criminals are acting like the shoe will never be on the other foot again.

[cybildisobedience]

18. It probably never will be....

which is why these programs are being put into place.

[Libby2]

16. Can they make a statement, without mentioning a Clinton?

[MADem]

3. They're figuring "What goes around, comes around"

I have to wonder if, when they are a minority, that when they want to hold hearings, they'll be given a basement room the size of a bathroom, and their staffers will have to drag in folding banquet tables and sheets for tablecloths.....

There's a price to be paid when you put your crappy little party ahead of the interests of the people. And what goes around, why, it tends to come around.

At least a few of these bozos are starting to recognize that.

[janx]

4. Damage control,

in some cases--Weyrich in particular, I'm guessing.

Some of the people mentioned are genuinely concerned. Others want to rake up the shreds that remain of their "conservative" party for purely political purposes.

[Mr_Spock]

5. Absolutely

I figure it's all for political reasons. No matter how you slice it though, nothing is going to happen to Bush unless there is a fracture in the Repuke party - so this is important news if we want Bush impeached.

[Catch22Dem]

6. Among the other theories posted here...

I think you're also seeing the separation between the new "fundie" repukes, and the old-school "small government" repukes. Make no mistake about it, they're all wretched, but this is one area where they'll NOT march in lock-step.

[wysiwyg]

8. Fear of Democrats with that power vs GOP power forever

I don't know, perhaps the split is between those pessimistic Republican outsiders who think the Democrats might end up with these powers some day and those insiders who expect to never be out of power.

[AndyTiedye]

9. Congress! Do Your Duty! Save Our Republic!

IMPEACH!

[Mr_Spock]

10. This really is about impeachment...

It's going to take a few Republicans with integrity to restore sanity back to our government...

[seemslikeadream]

11. under Bush's theory a president could authorize internment camps

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/05/on_eve_of_hearing_split_on_spying/?page=2

Bruce Fein, a former Justice Department official under President Reagan, said that under Bush's theory a president could authorize internment camps for groups of US citizens he deems suspicious. Congress outlawed such camps after President Franklin D. Roosevelt interned Japanese-Americans in World War II. But under Bush's theory, the president could invoke his wartime powers to override the law in the name of protecting national security, Fein said.

Halliburton?

[Mr_Spock]

12. This is the most important issue facing us today

What could be more important that defining where the Presidents powers end and if he has to follow US law or can make up his own?

[lovuian]

13. Hey Bush can spy on them and then who needs them

when your a dictator...

[truthisfreedom]

14. Paul, buddy, gw has already lied about what he's done with his "wartime"

powers... he can't get his story straight... you're worried about a theoretical president while the one we have has committed such eggregious crimes? methinks you are simply obfuscating the truth, d***breath!

[Born Free]

15. some are willing to seperate principles from party

I know we like to group them all together, all the time. On occasion there are some that reach a point where their personal principles of legality are more important than preserving the party unity. Those individuals that are willing to put USA above the party should be acknowledged for their bravery.

[gulfcoastliberal]

17. Somehow I think they'll find the "key" to the lockstep before long

I truly hope I'm wrong, but the last 6 years have jaded me. Whatever little commission they form will have no teeth nor produce any results - besides a good whitewashing.

[Mr_Spock]

19. These lying weasels are falling in lockstep

Good, the Repukes are self-destructing...