"If the President does it AND it's about National Security, it's not illegal"

[Bonobo]

True or false?

[SoutherDem]

1. Depends on the President

If it is a Republican it is legal.
If it is a Democrat it is illegal.

[frylock]

10. also depends on the audience..

around these parts if it is a democrat then it's legal.

[elleng]

2. YES, according to Tricky Dick!

[dflprincess]

3. I would say false at all times

though I'm sure some on this board would say false if Nixon or Bush (either one) did it; true if it's Clinton or Obama.

[caseymoz]

4. False.

President should at least be held to international law. If anything, that should enforced on all heads of state.

He can't unilaterally declare war, and his powers to declare a "war by some other name" should be curtailed.

Since he's sworn to uphold the Constitution, he should be held by its principles in international dealings.

[JayhawkSD]

5. "National Security" is an oxymoron

The United States faces no threats which jeopardize its security as a national entity. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

I think it was Colin Powell, for whom I mostly have no respect since his UN presentation, who said "They can knock down some of our buildings, they can kill some of our people, but they cannot harm us as a nation. Only we can do that."

[RZM]

7. But there are quite a few other threats that may not have the power to bring the nation down

But they do have the power to kill people simply for being Americans. And the CIC has a responsibility to do all they can to prevent that from happening.

9/11 did not threaten our way of life. But it did kill nearly 3,000 people. I'm not saying everything that was done in the name of it was justified. But the executive has an obligation to confront that threat and prevent more people dying for the same reason.

So your argument is completely false. There absolutely is such a thing as 'national security.' What you're talking about is 'prevention of complete catastrophe.' We don't need to worry much about that, but we do need to worry about little catastrophes.

[Octafish]

11. No, your argument is completely false.

Fighting terrorism is no reason to shred the Bill of Rights and the other parts of the Constitution.

For proof: Consider the United States fought and won World War II and the Cold War without a BFEE-benefitting USA PATRIOT Act.

[RZM]

12. Are you sure you read my post?

All I was saying was that there are threats out there that the president needs to deal with. I didn't say how he should deal with them, just that he should deal with him.

I would think almost everybody would agree with that assessment. What they wouldn't agree on is how to do it.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. False.

[provis99]

8. whether it's illegal or not is irrelevant.

They're going to do it, because they can.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. "National Security" is the Get Out of Jail Free card for the crimes of the bosses.

[Bandit]

13. What does a President do that does not involve in some way National Security?

Serious question....Everytime a President opens his or her mouth our National Security is involved. Think how many nut jobs there are out there that may take some form of offense over some comment or action by the President...When we as a nation torture people, is there any doubt that we create hatred so intense that National Security could be jeopardized because of it?

[quinnox]

14. False, but as noted by others, it would depend on who the president is for some

Of course they would be wrong, because by answering the question yes, you are saying the president is above the law and could in theory be a dictator where the rule of law is set by them alone.