Richard Posner on domestic intelligence-gathering
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg
In today’s WaPo. Here, for those who aren’t familiar with him, is Posner’s bio. Here’s the Becker-Posner blogsite.
6:08 AM / December 21, 2005
: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in
I’m going to re-post my comments from another thread, because I think they are relevant to this latest entry on the intelligence-gathering. Aside from the legal issue (and I think there’s plenty to show that what he did was illegal), the president appears to have blatantly lied to the American people.
It might be useful also to know what the President himself has said on these matters. Here is what he said in Buffalo, New York on April 20, 2004:
"When the President speaks, he better mean it."
Indeed. And then later, in the same remarks, he said (emphasis added):
"...there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Pretty interesting, isn’t it? Keep in mind he said all of this when he was still renewing this policy that allowed him to do the wiretaps WITHOUT the court orders. A bald-faced lie about matters of constitutional significance. I believe a discussion about impeachment should begin, and not just on blog sites.
So, no one is going to offer a denial, a dismissal, a rationalization, or at least tell me that I don’t understand the legal, technical, clinical definition of lying? Is there a single person here who is bothered by what Bush said there, considering that he has now admitted he was approving wiretaps during the same timeframe when he said that? Anyone?? Hello?
Jerry P. Noles- just shut up.
Oh, that’s an intelligent contribution, Derek. Anyway, yes Jerry, it looks as if the President lied, and of course it bothers me. I guess I’m just not very surprised by it.
Guess what J. Mont? Now you can both shut up!
Well, as you probably know I have real problems with the wiretaps, but I don’t see why the comment itself amounts to something impeachable. Unless Bush was under oath when he said it, there’s nothing criminal about it. (Recall that Clinton WAS under oath when he lied.)