I addressed this back in February, and concluded that Republicans have little to fear in this regard. And they know it. (This is the same post that I linked above.)
]]>Have We Gone Surveillance Crazy?
http://americaninventorspot.com/being_watched
And before Republicans complain that the Democrats wouldn’t be objecting if it was Clinton (Bill or Hillary) I would remind them that Clinton (Bill) didn’t use these statements in the same amount, or for the purpose of undermining or contradicting the will of Congress.
]]>http://connollyschronicles.blogspot.com/ ]]>
If the US wants to counter terrorism, and end the cycle of US paranoia and fear end the US contribution to global inserurity. If the US wants to counter widespread international anti Americanism (Anti-USism) the US should promote common security – peace, environment, human rights and social justice within a framework of international law – not contribute to global insecurity. The US administration has squandered the international good will that followed the attack on the towers.
After the Attack on the twin tours, many were asking “why do they hate us”. Rather than really answering this question, and promoting “common security”; the US administration proceeded to give additional reasons for anti-USism around the world. Some of the many reasons could be (i) maintaining the over 750 military bases around the world; (ii) the circulation and berthing of nuclear powered and nuclear arms capable vessels in other states; (iii) the hypocritical attitude towards the development of nuclear arms; increasing its arsenal and condoning Israeli possession of nuclear arms. (iv) the misconstruing of art 51—self defense – in the Charter of the United, the Nations to justify the invasion of Afghanistan; (v) the adoption of a policy of pre-emptive agressive attack; (vi) the violation of the Convention Against Torture; (vii) the institution of ballistic Missile defense and the use of space for military purposes, in violation of the Outer Space Treaty etc.(from the 52 plus two jokers ways the US contributes to global insecurity).
]]>But it took me till February to get around to that, and it was Poliblogger who prompted me to do so 
Better late than never, I suppose.
Of course, Supreme Court nominees are “forever,” while authoritarian executives and the supine legislatures that surernder to them are, we can hope, transient phenomena.
]]>Not to my knowledge, but I am not an expert on that area. I do know that the usage of these statements have reached a new level in this administration, so in some ways it is new thing.
]]>