Bush is a dirty spy...Part 4

I've been banging my head against the wall over this whole spying thing. The standard, and I thought strong, argument presented by the right was that other presidents like Clinton did the same as Bush II. How could I counter this argument in the face of glaring truth?

It turns out that argument is not true. Thanks to people that write for other websites and that have a great deal more time on their hands to do research than I do, I can finally stop banging my head against the wall... I hope.

Clinton did order some physical searches without warrant, that I will give you. However, according to this article and this article he never violated FISA since he never ordered searches of U.S. citizens or anyone in the United States after the revision of FISA. If you don't believe me, here is a link to the Executive Order he issued. Notice the part where it says that the Attorney General must make certain certifications (Section 1)? Those certifications include that "there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person" (link here). Furthermore, Carter's Ex. Order says the same thing. So that one's out too. Should we move one more President back and check his record on covert actions? I thought not.

In the case of Aldrich Ames, I don't feel too much of a concern. Yes, there was no warrant issued, but #1 this was before physical searches were included in FISA, and #2 Ames was a CIA agent, not your standard everyday American Joe. Although I realize the slight sense of hypocrisy in being OK with searches of this citizen, I won't give more of an argument other than, "Dude, he was a CIA agent" and show that FISA was not violated in this case.

Finally, my friend Peter did give a good argument in defense of Bush, but cited Clinton's warrantless drug testing of students. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) allowed warrantless searches of students because schools have an interest in maintaining safety and a good learning environment. More recently, but after Clinton, Pottawatomie v. Earls (2002) held that a school had the right to drug test students without warrant because of a school's "special need" to protect students and prevent drug use. The majority in this case were generally more conservative justices (Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia).

Well, I feel better about this issue now. Well, not better, but at least I feel like I see the light at the end of the tunnel. However, I am beginning to wonder if all President's in history have been so strongly targeted by their opposition as the current one. I mean, Clinton had Whitewater thing and the Monica Lewinsky thing (which I think was a crock anyways), but Bush seems to have started in controversy and has maintained it almost as a tradition. Did people have such strong distrust for Clinton as Bush? Is the current polarized political environment really that unique? Is the "Republicans vs. Democrats" as strongly fought as "Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists"? Are we all just assholes now that we can talk shit about each other on blogs like mine? I don't know. I guess that's why I have such disgust for both parties these days. I say we need at least 2 more legitimate parties, thus forcing a system based on coalition government. Yeah, I know that I am a bit of an idealist, but I still want universal health care too.