Fidoohki, the hole in your argument is that this did not prevent any attacks and wasn't necessary to prevent the attacks that did occur (and the memo in
question was pertinent to the 9/11 attacks - as well, Clinton made fighting terrorism a higher priority than the pre-9/11 Bush administration did, all of which
is on the record and basically indisputable).
But to turn it around another way... where's YOUR line? If you're willing to sacrifice a constitutional right and the law of the land in order to
achieve some undefinable level of safety against a terror attack... what won't you sacrifice? Is there any rights you think Bush shouldn't have been
able to take away from US citizens to fight his undeclared war? This is not an idle question. The Constitution is the highest law of the land in the U.S. If
you're okay with ripping it up, do you think there are any limits at all that the president should not be able to cross due to "being at war"?
question was pertinent to the 9/11 attacks - as well, Clinton made fighting terrorism a higher priority than the pre-9/11 Bush administration did, all of which
is on the record and basically indisputable).
But to turn it around another way... where's YOUR line? If you're willing to sacrifice a constitutional right and the law of the land in order to
achieve some undefinable level of safety against a terror attack... what won't you sacrifice? Is there any rights you think Bush shouldn't have been
able to take away from US citizens to fight his undeclared war? This is not an idle question. The Constitution is the highest law of the land in the U.S. If
you're okay with ripping it up, do you think there are any limits at all that the president should not be able to cross due to "being at war"?