Americans overwhelming support President Bush in wiretapping.

[cnredd]

Well..gee...if you'll look at my post of just a few minutes ago...you'll see your own quote where you say ...."After the law was broken."

Therefore...in my coffee deprived, early morning state of mind...you are saying Clinton broke a law that did not even exist at the time.

Not being very fair to Clinton, there are you?

Read the actual quote again...

aps wanted to know the logic of trying to change a law AFTER the law was broken

Then go to the article I've sourced...

Thanks to a warrant authorized by Attorney General Janet Reno, a team of agents from the sprawling National Security Division had permission to enter the Ames home in Arlington, Va. There was only one minor problem. The attorney general of the United States does not have the authority to order a warrantless physical search of a citizen's home, argued Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University National Law Center. The Aldrich Ames search in my view was obviously and egregiously unconstitutional.

Did Clinton break the law?...Just as with Bush, some say "Yes"...some say "No"...

I'm only going by what the article states...I'm not a "legal eagle"...

But I do know this...when it comes to National Security, the law shouldn't handcuff the President trying to protect the country...Clinton, Bush, or whomever...

 

[AlbqOwl]

There is nothing in Janet Reno's words that allude to this.



I think it flies in the face of the Constitution.

Janet Reno has no jurisdiction in the current situation and it is to that to which I referred. Clinton's 'surveillance' however was far more widespread and of much broader scope, so far as we know, than any other president would have dared. Yet according to the criteria he claims, he did not overstep his boundaries so far as his direct executive orders went.

One of the most obvious and emphasized constitutional duties of the Federal government is to provide the national defense from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The President of the United States takes a solemn oath to uphold the constitution as does every member of Congress. There is no way that the President can fulfill his responsibilities or the government can provide that which it is mandated to provide without the ability to do surveillance on public enemies, both foreign and domestic.

The purpose behind the executive orders overriding FISA is to allow the government to do its job in cases where the public safety is in jeopardy, and there is no time to get a warrant and still get the job done. Those opposed to the current administration and/or congress somehow see them doing their duty as more sinister than when previous administrations did it. It isn't.

 

[cnredd]

Janet Reno has no jurisdiction in the current situation and it is to that to which I referred. Clinton's 'surveillance' however was far more widespread and of much broader scope, so far as we know, than any other president would have dared. Yet according to the criteria he claims, he did not overstep his boundaries so far as his direct executive orders went.

Agreed...

One of the most obvious and emphasized constitutional duties of the Federal government is to provide the national defense from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The President of the United States takes a solemn oath to uphold the constitution as does every member of Congress. There is no way that the President can fulfill his responsibilities or the government can provide that which it is mandated to provide without the ability to do surveillance on public enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Other than outright partisanship, I can't see how some don't understand this...

The purpose behind the executive orders overriding FISA is to allow the government to do its job in cases where the public safety is in jeopardy, and there is no time to get a warrant and still get the job done. Those opposed to the current administration and/or congress somehow see them doing their duty as more sinister than when previous administrations did it. It isn't.

I don't know about using the words "overriding FISA", but that does bring up a very important point...

If FISA and Executive Orders conflict...

a) Does one trump the other?

b) Why has this not been addressed years ago?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Agreed...

Other than outright partisanship, I can't see how some don't understand this...

I don't know about using the words "overriding FISA", but that does bring up a very important point...

If FISA and Executive Orders conflict...

a) Does one trump the other?

b) Why has this not been addressed years ago?

a) The constitution trumps any subsequent law.

b) I think it wasn't addressed years ago because there was no political advantage in doing so. There have always been more conservatives than liberals, and conservatives understood the need of law enforcement to be able to do their job. That's why I didn't mind when my phone was tapped. I wasn't doing anything illegal and had nothing to fear. The government had every right to know that, however, considering the company that I was keeping at that time. FISA does not trump or override the constitution no matter how much Bush opponents want to make political hay out of this issue and how much they wish to give it equal weight with the constitution.

 

[Touchmaster]

aThat's why I didn't mind when my phone was tapped. I wasn't doing anything illegal and had nothing to fear. /QUOTE]

This old chestnut is all fine and dandy if you believe that those in government always act in the interests of the citizens that they are supposed to represent... unfortunately anyone but the most idealistically naive must know that this isnt always the case...If you do believe that the Bush administration does act in this fashion (and I certainly do not, indeed it is my opinion that they are the most corrupt and self-serving the US has ever seen, but if you want to believe that then its your perogative), then it still sets a bad precedent for future less scrupulous (!perish the thought!) leaders to abuse power, for instance to spy on opponents and dissidents, like in a good old-fashioned fascist/stalinist dictatorship! woohoo!

 

[SAMMY1]

Is Your Mama In Middle School?

 

[AlbqOwl]

aThat's why I didn't mind when my phone was tapped. I wasn't doing anything illegal and had nothing to fear. /QUOTE]

This old chestnut is all fine and dandy if you believe that those in government always act in the interests of the citizens that they are supposed to represent... unfortunately anyone but the most idealistically naive must know that this isnt always the case...If you do believe that the Bush administration does act in this fashion (and I certainly do not, indeed it is my opinion that they are the most corrupt and self-serving the US has ever seen, but if you want to believe that then its your perogative), then it still sets a bad precedent for future less scrupulous (!perish the thought!) leaders to abuse power, for instance to spy on opponents and dissidents, like in a good old-fashioned fascist/stalinist dictatorship! woohoo!

I certainly do not believe that those in government always act in the interests of the citizens. I recently started a thread dealing with that very issue and it has drawn no interest whatsoever, however. That alone tells me that there is far more interest here in smearing the Bush administration than there is any interest in adopting policies and procedures that the public will accept.

What the anti-Bush people refuse to acknowledge is that the current administration is doing nothing at all any different than what every administration has done. If their hatred of Bush is successful in forcing a policy that prevents the government from doing the kinds of survellance they are currently doing, we will all be at much higher risk and we all may very well suffer.

At some point common sense has to trump hatred of a politician.

 

[26 X World Champs]

What the anti-Bush people refuse to acknowledge is that the current administration is doing nothing at all any different than what every administration has done. If their hatred of Bush is successful in forcing a policy that prevents the government from doing the kinds of survellance they are currently doing, we will all be at much higher risk and we all may very well suffer.

At some point common sense has to trump hatred of a politician.

And exactly how will all of us "Bush Haters" force policy? Since the NEOCONS control every branch of government it seems obvious that if there are "policy" changes made it will be due to the fact that what Aldrich Bush is doing is illegal and needs reforming...otherwise how would the minority succeed in getting through legislation that alters the current law?

Your post which feigns to be fair and non-partisan is in fact the exact opposite. You've made up an impossible scenario with the intent of bashing those of us who believe that our civil rights are more important than anything else we possess, and that our civil rights are what America was built on and what so many millions of Americans have died to protect. I for one am not comfortable with some sicko paranoid President taking the law into his own hands under the guise of national security or for any other reason.

Want to allow for domestic surveillance of Americans change the law and the Constitution, or test the legality in court, but don't do it unilaterally as a scare tactic to "protect us."

 

[aps]

Poor, poor Bush. Setting up meetings right and left to justify why he is able to conduct warrantless searches without any oversight from another branch of the government. His various arguments are described below

Okay, first, under his inherent Article II powers, he is able to conduct warrantless searches in the name of national security.

Second, if his Artile II powers did not allow for warrantless searches (or even if they did), the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent "any future acts of international terrorism against the United States," which includes the power to conduct warrantless searches. LOL Okay.

For this proposition, the Bushies rely on the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision from the Supreme Court. There, the Supreme Court stated that AUMF allowed the US to detain Hamdi as an unlawful combatant; however, 8 of the justices agreed that the president does not have the power to hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen. In Scalia's dissent, he stated that the AUMF was insufficient to allow for dentention period. He noted that Congress had not suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and that the government could not detain Hamdi unless it charged him with a crime. Let's not forget that one of Bush's favorite justices is Scalia. And Scalia reads the AUMF more strictly than a majority of the Court.

Third, Gonzales says that he went to certain members of Congress to see if FISA could be amended to allow the pres to conduct warrantless searches but that he was advised that it would be essentially "impossible." Hmmm, so if Bush has the inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct warrantless searches or has the power under the AUMF, why would the Attorney General need to seek to amend FISA? I don't get it. And tell me how a Republican Congress couldn't get this amendment through. Huh?

The Bushies' newest allegation is that to the extent that FISA does not allow the pres to conduct such warrantless searches, it is unconsitutional.

Oh brother. They can't decide what is their best defense, so they keep coming up with additional legal arguments. And the VP met with Congressional leaders on Friday to convince them that what the president did was legal.

I am president of my homeowners association. I have a homeowner who challenges me regularly on my power to do certain things for the homeowners association. She has sent out e-mails to the homeowners about how I don't follow the rules. She has her head in her butt. But guess what? I am so confident that I have done things lawfully and legally that I just let her rant away (and I tell her she is free to take this issue to a civil court). If Bush was so confident in his powers, he would assert he had the power and then let it go. He knows he is on weak legal grounds, and I love watching how defensive he is. LOL

 

[aps]

Just who in Congress did Gonzales speak to that allegedly told him that it would be almost impossible to amend FISA?

John McCain was on Fox News Sunday, and he said he didn't think that the president had the legal authority to do what he did and wondered why Bush didn't come to talk to Congress about amending FISA.

WALLACE: Some Republicans say that the bin Laden tape reminds us or should remind us why the president needs the power to authorize this NSA intercept of communications between the U.S. and foreign countries without court warrants, that he needs every weapon in his arsenal.

Now, you have expressed some concerns about the NSA program. Does this change your mind?

MCCAIN: No. But my concerns are that we should have -- the president should come to Congress with a proposal as to how we can best meet these new challenges. Look, everybody's got a BlackBerry now, the e-mails, all of the new technologies for communications, as opposed to, say, 10 or 15 years ago where we all just had a hard line.

There are new challenges in the use of telecommunications that, in my view, indicate that we probably need some enhanced powers. But why not just come to Congress? Now Senator Specter is going to have some hearings on it -- come to Congress, tell us what we need, what the president needs, and I am confident that he would get that authority.

WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps.

MCCAIN: You know, I don't think so, but why not come to Congress? We can sort this all out. I don't think -- I know of no member of Congress, frankly, who, if the administration came and said here's why we need this capability, that they wouldn't get it. And so let's have the hearings.

Let's have the administration come to Congress. I think they will get that authority, whatever is reasonable and needed, and increased abilities to monitor communications are clearly in order. . . .

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182434,00.html

I wonder if Gonzales was lying when he claimed he spoke to members of Congress about amending FISA.

 

[KCConservative]

aThat's why I didn't mind when my phone was tapped. I wasn't doing anything illegal and had nothing to fear. /QUOTE]

This old chestnut is all fine and dandy if you believe that those in government always act in the interests of the citizens that they are supposed to represent... unfortunately anyone but the most idealistically naive must know that this isnt always the case...If you do believe that the Bush administration does act in this fashion (and I certainly do not, indeed it is my opinion that they are the most corrupt and self-serving the US has ever seen, but if you want to believe that then its your perogative), then it still sets a bad precedent for future less scrupulous (!perish the thought!) leaders to abuse power, for instance to spy on opponents and dissidents, like in a good old-fashioned fascist/stalinist dictatorship! woohoo!

Exactly. It's just your opinion. You've based it on nothing. Come on, touch, what are you afraid of? What are you hiding?

 

[aps]

Exactly. It's just your opinion. You've based it on nothing. Come on, touch, what are you afraid of? What are you hiding?

Interesting that you address Touchmaster's argument but not mine, particularly when I provide evidence to substantiate my allegation that what Bush has done is against the law.

 

[KCConservative]

Interesting that you address Touchmaster's argument but not mine, particularly when I provide evidence to substantiate my allegation that what Bush has done is against the law.

I didn't address touchmaster's post. I only addressed his partisan, baseless and opinionated generalization: "indeed it is my opinion that they are the most corrupt and self-serving the US has ever seen".

 

[aps]

I didn't address touchmaster's post. I only addressed his partisan, baseless and opinionated generalization: "indeed it is my opinion that they are the most corrupt and self-serving the US has ever seen".

Ooooooooooooh, okay. My bad. Touchmaster's opinion is my opinion too, although the Nixon Administration may have been just as corrupt and self serving.

 

[KCConservative]

Ooooooooooooh, okay. My bad. Touchmaster's opinion is my opinion too, although the Nixon Administration may have been just as corrupt and self serving.

And baseless opinions are fine. Free country. It's also fine to point them out.

 

[aps]

And baseless opinions are fine. Free country.

"Baseless" is in the eye of the beholder. Please look at my posts on this message board, as they show upon what evidence I base my opinion about the corruptness of this administration.

It's also fine to point them out.

Of course, particualy when you feel that there might be some truth to the allegation. :lol:

 

[Binary_Digit]

Let's see...

- sanctioned torture/extra rendition & lying about it
- numerous examples of unobjective and deceptive analysis of Iraq WMD intelligence
- leaked CIA agent, exposed an entire CIA front company
- doctored environmental reports & reniged on Kyoto
- possibly violoated the law by spying on American political activists

Yep, the idea that this administration is corrupt is pretty much "baseless."

 

[VoiceOfReason]

Oh please how much baseless LW rhetoric can you spout in one sentence.

There was nver any authorizing of tortue.

there was no reneging on Kyoto. <did you know it rejected UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate under the last President>.

He said the same things the last President said about WMD. When is the left going to stop titling at windmills on this one.

 

[VoiceOfReason]

Oh please how much baseless LW rhetoric can you spout in one sentence.

There was nver any authorizing of tortue.

there was no reneging on Kyoto. <did you know it rejected UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate under the last President>.

He said the same things the last President said about WMD. When is the left going to stop tilting at windmills on this one.

No CIA agent was EVER leaked. A Total lie.

 

[aps]

No CIA agent was EVER leaked. A Total lie.

Mr. Fitzgerald, special counsel, is that you? Have you made your final determination in this case? Share with us how you came to that conclusion. Does this mean that Karl Rove is off the hook? Can we dismiss the case against Scooter Libby? :lol:

VOR, Fitzgerald has stated that Plame's status at the CIA was "classified." Based upon what I have seen/read, I don't think she was covert and thus the statute regarding outing a covert agent has not been violated. However, there is a statute about leaking classified information, which I believe was violated.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Oh please how much baseless LW rhetoric can you spout in one sentence.

There was nver any authorizing of tortue.

there was no reneging on Kyoto. <did you know it rejected UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate under the last President>.

He said the same things the last President said about WMD. When is the left going to stop tilting at windmills on this one.

No CIA agent was EVER leaked. A Total lie.

Good post. But too many on the Left have swallowed the party smear line and they know full well that if the lies are repeated often enough, there will be plenty gullible enough to believe them or those who want them to be true bad enough that they won't bother to check the realities.

 

[aps]

Good post. But too many on the Left have swallowed the party smear line and they know full well that if the lies are repeated often enough, there will be plenty gullible enough to believe them or those who want them to be true bad enough that they won't bother to check the realities.

LOL Assuming that is true, where do you think the democrats learned it? Yup--you got it--from Republicans. Hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

 

[VoiceOfReason]

So far , there has been one indictment. And it wasn't for leaking a CIA agent's name.

If somebody did that < leaked a covert agent's name> there would be more than one indictment.

there hasn't been .

comments?

 

[VoiceOfReason]

LOL Assuming that is true, where do you think the democrats learned it? Yup--you got it--from Republicans. Hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I think you better brush up on your politcical history.

 

[AlbqOwl]

LOL Assuming that is true, where do you think the democrats learned it? Yup--you got it--from Republicans. Hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Well assuming that you can show how the technique was developed and taught by Republicans, I will accept this that you do admit that the Democrats are fostering the stated lies and that a whole bunch of people on the Left are dumb enough, gullible enough, or dishonest enough to believe and/or perpetuate them.

If that was your intent, then hey, way to go. Great post. :smile: