Blood pressure rising... RISING...
May. 9th, 2006 04:06 am![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
I probably should not have clicked on
lilliew's link. Upon reading the reply linked below, something in my soul died a little death.
I'm not going to reply on the thread itself because I'm in no mood for a fight with someone who thinks like this:
http://community.livejournal.com/babylon5/359453.html?thread=3626013#t3626013
If Clinton didn't berak any laws when he promulgated wiretaps and premisis searches without warrants, why did Bush do so?
I would argue that warrantless searches (under Clinton) violate the Fourth Amendment and confiscating property under admirality law (Carter) violates both the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.
Because, at the time that both presidents did those things, they were dealing through current loopholes in the laws. When the loopholes were subsequently closed by the courts, both men changed their practices to comport with the new understandings of those laws. Bush worked through no such loophole. What he did was blantantly illegal.
But for you all, I will share my immediate reaction:
So we determine what is right based on what is legal? I'm sorry, but that is not Earth logic. If something is wrong, it is WRONG no matter what human law might say on the matter. Remember that slavery was legal worldwide until close to the turn of the nineteenth century. Remember also that segregation was law in the South until the 1950's.
On the flip-side, laws can also proscribe actions that are good and right in the long run. Have social liberals suddenly changed their mind on gay marriage? The mayor of San Francisco did something that was "blatantly illegal" according to the laws of California, but for all proponents of marriage rights for gays, he's a hero.
We are a nation of laws, but no law should be free from examination. If you want to criticize Bush on his civil rights record, do so from the standpoint of morality. Don't hide behind legal technicalities.
*primal scream*
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
I'm not going to reply on the thread itself because I'm in no mood for a fight with someone who thinks like this:
http://community.livejournal.com/babylon5/359453.html?thread=3626013#t3626013
If Clinton didn't berak any laws when he promulgated wiretaps and premisis searches without warrants, why did Bush do so?
I would argue that warrantless searches (under Clinton) violate the Fourth Amendment and confiscating property under admirality law (Carter) violates both the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.
Because, at the time that both presidents did those things, they were dealing through current loopholes in the laws. When the loopholes were subsequently closed by the courts, both men changed their practices to comport with the new understandings of those laws. Bush worked through no such loophole. What he did was blantantly illegal.
But for you all, I will share my immediate reaction:
So we determine what is right based on what is legal? I'm sorry, but that is not Earth logic. If something is wrong, it is WRONG no matter what human law might say on the matter. Remember that slavery was legal worldwide until close to the turn of the nineteenth century. Remember also that segregation was law in the South until the 1950's.
On the flip-side, laws can also proscribe actions that are good and right in the long run. Have social liberals suddenly changed their mind on gay marriage? The mayor of San Francisco did something that was "blatantly illegal" according to the laws of California, but for all proponents of marriage rights for gays, he's a hero.
We are a nation of laws, but no law should be free from examination. If you want to criticize Bush on his civil rights record, do so from the standpoint of morality. Don't hide behind legal technicalities.
*primal scream*