Dan wrote:
> This is a tremendous overstatement. For example, the war powers that > Bush claims are powers with strong precedence. In particular, Lincoln > serves as the precedence for the wide ranging power of the > Commander-in-Chief. The > powers he assumed as president were overwhelmingly greater than any > president before, and since (with FDR coming the closest). I suggest you read more about Lincoln and his period because while I agree that he increased the power of the presidency for those that followed him, and that at times he wielded a heavy hand, I don't believe his power is even close to being comparable to that of modern presidents. Furthermore, using a precedent set during our civil war as justification for similar war powers for the so-called war on terror (which, in fact, is not a war), is ludicrous. > If you look at Bush's spying on Americans in historical context, you will > see that it is far less extensive than that ordered by the unelected > Hoover. Have you really thought about this Dan? First of all, Hoover wasn't the president so his powers were limited to the FBI and whomever he could blackmail using that agency. Secondly the technology available at the time was absolutely primitive in comparison with what is now available. To put it in perspective, I'll bet it's possible that this administration has monitored more phone calls in the last 24 hours than Hoover monitored in his entire 48 year tenure. Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
