"Do I have the legal authority to do this?...Absolutely" - Bush, 2005

[berni_mccoy]

"When the President does it, it means it's not illegal." - Richard Nixon, 1977

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg6D8hhG97Q&search=bush

[Wafture]

1. Bush Nixon

[Wafture]

2. Compare & Contrast

[OnyxCollie]

3. So I have to do a term paper,

using a persuasive argument, for my poli-sci class. I decide to do it on the NSA wiretaps. The class was asked to write a paragraph describing our paper and to turn it in. I write this:

President George W. Bush claims the September 2001 congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force in response to the 9/11 attacks allows the administration to electronically eavesdrop, through warrantless NSA wiretaps, on American citizens. This claim of executive authority overrides the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, which requires judicial authorization for domestic electronic surveillance and physical searches of persons engaged in espionage or terrorist activities. It also appears to violate Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution. President Bush says it is legal. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says it is legal. Others disagree. Due to current opposition by a Republican-held Senate to a congressional probe and by proposals to enact legislation to legalize the eavesdropping, the true legality of this issue may never be known. This essay will attempt to prove that President Bush, through his domestic spying program, is acting illegally at the expense of the civil rights of American citizens as prescribed by the Constitution.

This should be easy, I think. I turn in my paragraph, start my research and quickly compile 68 sources.

Today, I go to class and receive my paragraph back. The class is instructed to *Surprise!* write our term papers using the other side of the argument.

Sonofabitch. I voice my disapproval with the teaching assistant. "There's no way I can write 7-9 pages on how it is legal for Bush to spy on Americans without warrants. The Bush administration has yet to even prove this. The Democrats have said that Gonzales has offered the 'the feeblest of arguments.' Terra! Terra! Terra! 9/11 changed everything is only going to take up one line."

"Can I make it a satire, because any argument I make is only going to be logical to a Kool Aid swilling idiot."

No, I am told.

I am pissed.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Oh man.. yer gonna hafta fill 9 pages with

** is the second coming. ** is the second coming.

You poor thing. :(

[Disturbed]

5. Damn! Good luck.

Search the Net for RW spiels on this and paraphrase.

[A-Possum]

6. Since you are screwed anyway...

Try this...

First sentence is something about how even for a grade, as an American citizen you will not pretend or create propaganda to support illegal and unconstitutional behavior...

Then put down every Bush/Republican/Gonzales talking point, examine it as fairly as you can and refute it.

Worst than can happen is you get a bad grade. But they can't say you didn't look at the other side. And you can be proud of thinking things through as a responsible American citizen. And for standing up for what you believe.

Good luck!

[Art_from_Ark]

7. What a stupid ASSignment

This is not a debate class or law class, so the TA's insistence on writing 7-9 pages explaining why this shit is *ahem* "legal" sounds like the TA just doesn't want to face the hard truth that it ISN'T legal. Having been a TA myself, I would have had the class explain their own position with cited sources, but also have them cite and discuss opposing opinions.