Al Gore Speech

[debate_junkie]

It absolutely positively does matter whether or not it was done by a previous President. More specifically, it matters whether the previous President offered a legal justification that was upheld by the courts.

All of you that are bashing the "Clinton did it too" and "other Presidents did also" folks are missing the point. It ain't about jumping off the Empire State Building, its about legal precedents. Its about the legal opinions that were offered and relied on by previous Presidents, whether it was Clinton, Reagan, Carter or George Washington.

Most know (though some may not appreciate the great extent) precedent is relied on in the legal system. Its just huge. If a lower court has ruled on some question, then it can be appealed; if the Supreme Court should agree to hear it, the appeals can go all the way to the SC. Consequently, the legal opinions that were relied on by previous Presidents and any court rulings on those opinions, are highly relevant to the current kerfuffle.

Some of the precedents cited by the various legal scholars have been decided by lower courts and have not been (thus far) appealed to higher courts. Some of the precedents cited were decided by the SC (the important Hamdi case, for example). Some of the precedents in fact go all the back to the Prize ship cases in the early 1800s.

It remains to be seen whether or not the particular precedents cited by both pro and con participants in this case will be reviewed by the SC. So, all of you who are jumping up and down and criticizing those who point that previous presidents did it too need to back up and focus on the legal issues and forget the childish reductio ad absurdum comments. Likewise, those who offer the "previous presidents did it too" defense need to recognize that not all legal scholars agree with the arguments offered (on the other hand, nor do they all disagree either).

Of course it is all about legal precident. I never said it wasn't. However, I was offering my point that the "Clinton did it too" argument was childish. Nothing more, nothing less. We all know that two wrongs don't make a right, so by offering the "Clinton did it too argument" but at the same time saying Clinton was wrong because he did it for personal gain, and not for the better of country, was doublespeak, to which I pointed out.

 

[Navy Pride]

I personally think all this wiretapping business is wishful thinking on the parts of the dems............President Bush advised the leaders in congress as to what he was doing on the subject............He has a whole stable of lawyers to advise him on the legalities involved.........

This is just another case of the dems who have nothing to offer on any issue using their new mantra of the "Culture of Corruption." They are so desperate.........Its almost laughable.......

 

[ptsdkid]

I personally think all this wiretapping business is wishful thinking on the parts of the dems............President Bush advised the leaders in congress as to what he was doing on the subject............He has a whole stable of lawyers to advise him on the legalities involved.........

This is just another case of the dems who have nothing to offer on any issue using their new mantra of the "Culture of Corruption." They are so desperate.........Its almost laughable.......

**Its almost laughable? No, it is laughable and quite pathetic to boot.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I personally think all this wiretapping business is wishful thinking on the parts of the dems............President Bush advised the leaders in congress as to what he was doing on the subject............He has a whole stable of lawyers to advise him on the legalities involved.........

I really hope you're right. The problem is we don't know and there is a growing consensus in the legal establishment that Bush's wiretapping was/is illegal.

I don't think Bush would listen to a lawyer that told him he was wrong on this or any issue. That's not how this administration functions. Time will tell.

 

[Navy Pride]

I really hope you're right. The problem is we don't know and there is a growing consensus in the legal establishment that Bush's wiretapping was/is illegal.

I don't think Bush would listen to a lawyer that told him he was wrong on this or any issue. That's not how this administration functions. Time will tell.

Well that is where we part company because I know President Bush would listen to the AG on any legal matter........I think the consensus you talk about are mostly partisan dems....I have not heard one republican say they were illegal................I don't think hearings will do much good though as they will be totally partisan.............This will probably go to the SCOTUS for a decision........

 

[Stinger]

A physical search of espionage suspect Aldrich Ames was conducted by the justice department under the Clinton Administration without warrant. However, at the time, FISA law did not address physical searches. Therefore, the Clinton Administration was operating within the law at the time.

Hold on where did you get the idea that FISA did not addresses searches of any kind to begin with, a cite please. Second if you admit that the President had the constitutional authority to conduct such a search then we're back to the basic constitutional premise that the Congress cannot simply legislate away the Presidents constitutional authority, IOW as I have already cited the courts saying FISA cannot intrude of the presidents existing authority to act.

This is not to say that I agree with their actions. I don’t, I believe that we have a constitutional right to privacy, and that right should not abridged without judicial approval.

So do you support the current income tax system where we have to give up some of our most private information to the government without a warrant?

However, since the Clinton Administration was operating within the confines of the law, it’s an apples to oranges comparison. Moreover, the Clinton Administration latter successfully lobbied congress to extend FISA law to cover physical searches.

Actually they argued, as already cited (and I note another assertion on your part without evidence), that the Presidents inherient authority to conduct these seraches EXTENDED to electronice survielence and was not limite to physical searches.

The Bush Administration on the other hand has asserted that it can ignore FISA law and the wishes of congress.

When it comes to foreign intelligence gathering only. Why do you paint it as some broad sweeping power grab by the Executive when it is not that at all?

A position that I would put money on them loosing in the courts and in congress as such a position is clearly unconstitutional.

The courts have ruled on this already and it has been cited over and over in these threads without rebuttle, it is constitutuional.

I have no problem with the Bush Administration wiretapping terrorists so long as they get a court order within 72 hours of doing so.

What good is the warrant after the fact? And there is no requirement if one of the parties in a foreign agent or a foreign power or working with one. It's no longer a domestic issue.

If the law is inadequate, they need to get congress to change it. However, they cannot just ignore the law.

If it is an unconstitutional encrochment by congress they can. And they have taken it to court and won.

The problem is with this issue and many others, the right wing rags and the Bush Administration put out 2 inches of truth and throw about 10 feet of **** on top of it. As Reagan used to say, Trust but verify.

Actually they are the only ones speaking factually while the left throws our assertions which fly in the face of the facts. For instance the left keeps calling this "domestic" spying, it is not. They keep asserting that congress could curtail the Presidents constitutional power through the simple act of passing legislation, they cannot.

 

[Stinger]

Al Gore gave an amazing speech on Monday on the dangers of unchecked executive power.

Well here is an analysis Gore's "amazing" speech.

"In a speech to mostly left-wing groups in Washington, Mr. Gore tore into President George W. Bush for allegedly showing, through a controversial "data mining" program, a "disrespect for America's Constitution which has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of the Constitution."


Mr. Gore accused the Bush administration of "mass violations of the law" and of exhibiting a "seeming indifference to the Constitution." He said there are "serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the president."
He made it sound as if there are no grounds for legitimate debate about where presidential power ends. He portrayed the disagreement over a National Security Administration program as a matter not of interpretation about what the Constitution and laws mean, but instead of an administration that willfully ignores the Constitution.


The problem is, Mr. Gore can't even keep his own story straight. Elsewhere in the same speech, the former vice president said that "this administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential authority is exactly what our Constitution intended."


Think about that: If the administration believes a theory of presidential authority is "exactly what our Constitution intended," how then could the same administration be showing an "indifference to the Constitution"? Which is it, a mistaken theory or a deliberate violation? It can't be both."


http://www.al.com/opinion/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1137838828190500.xml&coll=3



Which is typical of the disjointed arguements from the left.



They went on to say:



"Mr. Gore's own administration argued repeatedly that presidents have the "inherent" authority even to order physical break-ins, for national security purposes, without a warrant. So did President Jimmy Carter's administration.
And Mr. Gore himself, in Monday's speech, said "there is in fact an inherent power that is conferred by the Constitution to the president to take unilateral action to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat, but it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not.""






And then they made the obvious point that if it is "simply not possible" to define the boundaries then how can Gore possibly know that President Bush has criminally exceeded them?



They then closed with



"Mr. Gore made no sense. The fact is that the Bush administration is involved in limited electronic surveillance of known terrorism suspects. Al Gore's fulminations aside, Americans should approve of President Bush's life-saving conduct."

 

[KCConservative]

Excellent points, stinger.

 

[KCConservative]

Al Gore's fulminations aside, Americans should approve of President Bush's life-saving conduct."

My family and I do approve, whole-heartedly.

 

[jfuh]

My family and I do approve, whole-heartedly.

Life saving conduct? Come on, the guy has nothing but a war monger.