Blood pressure rising... RISING...

[hobsonphile.livejournal.com]

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*

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_conundrum_/]

*pat pat*

This is why I avoid B5 on the wired. Except for you, that is.

[derringdo.livejournal.com]

This is why I spent a decade hating B5, its creator and its fandom and only discovered in the past couple that there were some quite decent and intelligent ppl in the fandom :/

[izuko.livejournal.com]

Eh. I don't think it would be right for me to invade their group to argue politics. Liberals do that enough, as it is. It's like the mafia - start a fight with one liberal, and the entire DNC (as well as every emogoth) is in your LJ yelling at you.

I still think Bush's response should be "There was no controlling legal authority."

[stormkitten.livejournal.com]

That would be why I locked my journal to friends only and why I lock my politics down.

[izuko.livejournal.com]

It's fun to batter them around, and if they get truely out of hand, then I have no problem CANNEXing their comments. If they have the lack of courtesy to make personal insults in my journal, then they don't deserve the repect of not being deleted.

[lilliew.livejournal.com]

Yeah, sorry for getting ya'll involved. I should have known better. :(

Every now and then, I get real tired of liberal bashing, especially on LJ.

I love how they arbitrarily decide which illegal things to make an issue of. Illegal immigration that allows terrorists across our border? No problem! Bush potentially wire-tapping to gather information about terrorist activity? OMG that's criminal!

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

Every so often it's useful to be reminded that most of the moonbattery (and a no doubt a fair bit of wing-nuttery :-) is caused by seriously flawed data points.

What disturbs me is the complete atrophy of the run-and-find-out motivator.