approves something because of a threat to internal peace and order, of
significant magnitude, then the President's decision, in that instance...enables those who carry [the President's order] out to carry it out to do so without violating the law. " - Richard M. Nixon
"Did Erlichmann inform me that these two men were going to California? He may well have. And if he had, I would have said, 'Go right ahead'." -
Nixon, in reference to Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt going to California to break into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office.
2. Or, comment on any similarities to today's events in the war on terror. Think about the comparisons to the Patriot Act, National Security Agency's unwarranted wiretapping, checking emails, library records, torture and methods of torture, etc. Since we haven't had a terrorist attack on American soil in almost eight years (knock on wood), does this lack of an attack mean that what we've doing is working? Why or why not? If President Bush / Obama hadn't or doesn't continue to do these measures, then who is at fault for another attack? CIA? NSA? The President? Bush/Obama is in a no-win situation here: you do too much, he's infringing on peoples' rights. He does too little, he gets most if not all of the blame.
Due Monday, May 11. 200 words minimum. Git 'er done!