A bunch of Nixon's thugs (including G Gordon Liddy) broke into a hotel, intending to steal papers to read about his opponents.

George W Bush has subverted much of our national security apparatus to illegally spy on many or even most American citizens. The new FISA bill acknowledges that the president broke the law, and at his administration's behest, most major phone companies broke the law. They're being given immunity from being held accountable for having broken the law.

When it was clear that America was going to follow through with holding him accountable, Nixon did the honorable thing, and left of his own accord, to spare the country. In his words, America deserved a president who was not a crook. From late 1972 until 1974, we showed that we take our democracy very seriously, that the rule of law is king.

Ben Franklin famously answered a question about the form of the new American government, which was "a republic, if you can keep it." Today, a scant 35 years on, America is demonstrating that we will tolerate corruption at the highest levels. Government by the people, for the people, is as quaint as not torturing people. In short, America has shown that she will accept having a crook as the most powerful man in the free world.

Impeachment is warranted - it's time for Americans to stand up for the rule of law, to save our Republic.

I like the Nixon comparison, it made me ask the question "Does that make Nixon a better president than Bush?" I didn't think it would be possible to hold Nixon above anyone, even GWB.

That seems like the case, but what Nixon was ultimately forced out for was less than 1 % of Bush's massively illegal domestic spying program. In terms of scope, malicious intent, or virtually any other way it could be measured.

It is out responsibility as citizens to uphold the health of our democracy. Bush, like all Americans, must obey the laws, and be held accountable for his actions when he fails to. The job of the Executive Branch (of which the president is the head) is to make sure laws are enforced - a president who flagrantly breaks the law, in a way that touches most Americans, is disastrous and mortally dangerous to a democracy.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

That seems like the case, but what Nixon was ultimately forced out for was less than 1 % of Bush's massively illegal domestic spying program. In terms of scope, malicious intent, or virtually any other way it could be measured.

It is out responsibility as citizens to uphold the health of our democracy. Bush, like all Americans, must obey the laws, and be held accountable for his actions when he fails to. The job of the Executive Branch (of which the president is the head) is to make sure laws are enforced - a president who flagrantly breaks the law, in a way that touches most Americans, is disastrous and mortally dangerous to a democracy.

This is all true. Additionally, although he is dead, we should posthumously heap shame on the memory of Franklin Delanor Roosevelt with a criminal indictment for his shameful illegal detentions of hundreds of thousands of U.S. Citizens. He flagrantly broke the law and we Americans deserve better.

Well, Chum is firmly against the rule of law and firmly against democracy - anybody else support America having a king who shouldn't be accountable to the people?

I really hope Chum is the only one here who believes a government draws its legitimacy by breaking laws, and not by the consent of the governed.

John,

Haven't you figured it out yet? No matter what Bush has done, some other president did something bad so that justifies ANYTHING Bush has done or will do. But only since he's republican. If a democrat does something bad, it's the worse thing ever done.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

It is out responsibility as citizens to uphold the health of our democracy. Bush, like all Americans, must obey the laws, and be held accountable for his actions when he fails to. The job of the Executive Branch (of which the president is the head) is to make sure laws are enforced - a president who flagrantly breaks the law, in a way that touches most Americans, is disastrous and mortally dangerous to a democracy.

Bravo. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Originally Posted by cbwm

This is all true. Additionally, although he is dead, we should posthumously heap shame on the memory of Franklin Delanor Roosevelt with a criminal indictment for his shameful illegal detentions of hundreds of thousands of U.S. Citizens. He flagrantly broke the law and we Americans deserve better.

Delano. In most documentaries I've seen of late, the internment of Japanese Americans IS viewed as a black mark on FDR's presidency. But the fact remains that such criticism only came about after Nixon. Before him, that was rare to unheard of. Personally, I think America is better off for that: We're more publicly street-smart with regard to our views about our higher elected officials, and should be.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Well, Chum is firmly against the rule of law and firmly against democracy - anybody else support America having a king who shouldn't be accountable to the people?

I really hope Chum is the only one here who believes a government draws its legitimacy by breaking laws, and not by the consent of the governed.

But John, if you can back this up, I'll personally come out there and shake your hand. Yeah, cbwm is hypocritical of all things Republican; of that there's no doubt. I think he'd do well to adopt a jaded view of BOTH parties. But, then again, that view might benefit you as well.

tim

Originally Posted by joder

John,

Haven't you figured it out yet? No matter what Bush has done, some other president did something bad so that justifies ANYTHING Bush has done or will do. But only since he's republican. If a democrat does something bad, it's the worse thing ever done.

Well, that may be kind of true.... but you've got me wrong in this particular instance. I think FDR did what he thought was right, just as Bush is doing what he thinks is right. If FDR and Truman variety of democrats existed today, I could vote democrat. Also of interest, we will never know the impact the internment actually had on Japanese intelligence within the U.S.. There can be no doubt that Japanese spies aided in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Similarly, by the time these wiretaps are found to be unconstitutional, it will be impossible to tell how many terrorist acts would actually have been brought to fruition without them. The only data we will have to work with is the fact Bush held a zero post 9-11 attack on American soil record, including embassies, while they were enacted.

Originally Posted by cbwm

The only data we will have to work with is the fact Bush held a zero post 9-11 attack on American soil record, including embassies, while they were enacted.

That's an inadequate data set and a sad excuse for giving up freedoms.

BTW, American embassies are on other countries soil

EDIT:

So you think that because there may have been a few Japaneses spies, it was okay to imprison tens of thousands of U.S. citizens simply because they were Japanese?

Originally Posted by joder

That's an inadequate data set and a sad excuse for giving up freedoms.

BTW, American embassies are on other countries soil

Nevertheless, the embassy grounds themselves are considered U.S. soil. Reason #4932 Jimmy Carter is a gutless pansy. You could probably have planted one on his wife right in front of him when she was hot (was she ever hot?) and he would have done nothing.

Originally Posted by joder

So you think that because there may have been a few Japaneses spies, it was okay to imprison tens of thousands of U.S. citizens simply because they were Japanese?

I think what I said was I think they thought they were doing what thought they had to do to keep Americans safe. Had I been Japanese during that time, I probably would not have been real happy. I have a few friends who are Japanese American, whose families spent time in those camps. Its amazing that I have never once sensed resentment from them about it. Michelle Malkin (Japanese American) went so far as to write a book justifying the action. I do know that we have already given up many rights to fly safely on an airplane and there seems to be little outcry about it. You may not know this, but using the word "bomb" in an airport can get you indicted of a federal offense (felony). So much for free speech. Searches of your person and possessions are commonplace and quite likely completely unconstitutional. Let me throw the ball back in your court. Do you think the trampling of our civil rights that is currently going on daily at airports is worth catching a few guys trying to hijack a plane and use it as a weapon?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Do you think the trampling of our civil rights that is currently going on daily at airports is worth catching a few guys trying to hijack a plane and use it as a weapon?

Wow. How do you come up with this stuff . I fly and have never had my civil rights violated or given any up. Crying bomb at an aiport is not free speech just like yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't.

Of course your words are a smoke screen and don't touch on the real issues of government invading privacy and search and seizure without a warrant on U.S. soil of U.S. citizens.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Michelle Malkin

You mean the Michelle Malkin who is the right-wing pundit and who like you things republicans can so no wrong? I've seen her on T.V. She's a 100% fool.

There were many, many Japaneses who didn't like being imprisoned. How the extremist right will go justify wrong actions. Maybe you would like to imprison Arab Americans today? What is the difference?

Originally Posted by joder

Wow. How do you come up with this stuff . I fly and have never had my civil rights violated or given any up. Crying bomb at an aiport is not free speech just like yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't.

Where do I come up with this stuff? Dennis Kucinich has the same rant about airports and civil rights. I thought he was a left wing hero. If you've ever had to submit to mandatory search of your person or belongings when you fly, you've had your civil rights violated. Maybe you don't fly much. Regarding the "bomb" issue, we are not talking about screaming bomb in an airport. I am talking about a discussion in which the word bomb is mentioned and overheard can cause you to be detained and possibly charged. That is unquestionably a free speech issue.

Originally Posted by joder

Of course your words are a smoke screen and don't touch on the real issues of government invading privacy and search and seizure without a warrant on U.S. soil of U.S. citizens.

What is it you think I was referring to above?

Originally Posted by joder

Maybe you would like to imprison Arab Americans today? What is the difference?

I don't know about imprisoning them, but I think the desire of our airport security to be non-profiling is ridiculous. They should unquestionably be profiling their searches. Anything else is a waste of our taxpayer dollars.

Originally Posted by joder

I've seen her on T.V. She's a 100% fool.

Because she disagrees with you, or because Olbermann doesn't like her.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I thought he was a left wing hero. If you've ever had to submit to mandatory search of your person or belongings when you fly, you've had your civil rights violated. Maybe you don't fly much. Regarding the "bomb" issue, we are not talking about screaming bomb in an airport. I am talking about a discussion in which the word bomb is mentioned and overheard can cause you to be detained and possibly charged. That is unquestionably a free speech issue.

1) I'm not "left-wing" and don't get my ideas from any party, any particular news agency, or look up only information that agrees with me.

2) I don't consider talking about bombs in an airport free speech unless your talking about free speech only in a straw man sense of "I can say anything I want, anytime, anywhere". Which is ridiculous. Whose going to go around talking about bombs in an airport when terrorists have bombed planes and you know it would excite those who were listening? Whoever does that should be flogged for stupidity.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I don't know about imprisoning them, but I think the desire of our airport security to be non-profiling is ridiculous. They should unquestionably be profiling their searches. Anything else is a waste of our taxpayer dollars.

I am not against profiling. It wasn't little old ladies of whatever color that bombed the U.S. and to search just because you don't want to appear to be profiling is nuts. (yes little old ladies were searched). What I am against is singling out Arabs because they are Arab. There has to be a whole profile. Not just ethnicity. And people shouldn't be rounded up because of their race. FDR was wrong.

Originally Posted by joder

Whose going to go around talking about bombs in an airport when terrorists have bombed planes and you know it would excite those who were listening? Whoever does that should be flogged for stupidity.

If it will help you focus, why not address the searches of your person and possessions. Are you trying to tell me that is constitutional? By the way, after 9-11, I invariably think of bombs when I am about to get on a plane, and I tend to talk about what I think about. I suppose flogging, or at least being detained would be OK in your book in this instance, regardless of the constitutionality of it. The very concept of trying to limit speech in a public place because it "excites" someone who is listening strikes at the heart of free speech. Maybe we should start arresting people who talk about logging when hanging with tree-hugers in Oregon.

Originally Posted by joder

I am not against profiling. It wasn't little old ladies of whatever color that bombed the U.S. and to search just because you don't want to appear to be profiling is nuts. (yes little old ladies were searched). What I am against is singling out Arabs because they are Arab. There has to be a whole profile. Not just ethnicity. And people shouldn't be rounded up because of their race. FDR was wrong.

Actually, what are you saying here is that FDR was right, he just didn't discriminate at granular enough level for your tastes. In other words, if the airline passenger fits the right profile, the trampling of their civil rights in an airport is perfectly acceptable, along with the profile based discrimination that would go along with it. On this, I currently agree with you, though not happily. The airlines need to work out another way to keep us safe when we fly, just like our government needs to find another way to keep us safe from terrorists besides illegal wire taps. I hear Israel has never had a hi-jacking since they removed the door connecting the cockpit from the passenger area on their jets. Bring a knife or gun on board.. who cares. What is so amazingly complicated about that?

Originally Posted by cbwm

I suppose flogging, or at least being detained would be OK in your book in this instance, regardless of the constitutionality of it.

You have to be a crack smoker. You are the one who thinks FDR was okay for imprisoning ten of thousands of U.S. citizens.

You know I was being metaphorical about flogging. But you don't have any real arguments, so you have to seize on something and twist it.

You now act like you care about the constitution? Give me a break. I don't think you have ever read it.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Actually, what are you saying here is that FDR was right, he just didn't discriminate at granular enough level for your tastes. In other words, if the airline passenger fits the right profile, the trampling of their civil rights in an airport is perfectly acceptable, along with the profile based discrimination that would go along with it. On this, I currently agree with you, though not happily.

If a person fits the profile of someone who might bomb a plane, then law enforcement has the right to ask them questions. I'm certainly not talking about imprisoning an entire ethnic group like FDR or putting people in Gitmo for 6 years like dim whit has done. Of course you know your just twisting my words like you do everyone's just because you like an argument.

If your against profiling, then I guess your against the same technique they use to catch all kinds of criminals.

Bush is much worse than Nixon.

They are both pretty bad. I am ready for Bush to leave office. I wish Obama and McCain were better choices.

Originally Posted by serandfae

I think he'd do well to adopt a jaded view of BOTH parties. But, then again, that view might benefit you as well.

That's a fair critique, so I should respond to it. You'll be happy to know I'm a hell of a lot more critical of democrats than republicans. The reason that doesn't seem true is that over the past several years, the democrats just haven't had as much opportunity to screw up, and the mistakes they've made generally haven't been as impactful as the things the republicans are doing to hurt America.

The democrats have been capitulating to Bush's agenda after promising to drain the swamp and stop rubber stamping GWB policy. That's what they've been up to. At the same time, Bush Co have been lieing to the world in order to convince young Americans to give up their lives for no bid oil contracts. Bush started a foreign and a civil war in Iraq for the profit of his personal friends.

The democrats aren't wonderful, but focusing on them at a time like this would be like running around a house as it burns to the ground, talking about having broken a nail.