• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Caught Lying About Spying on Americans

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

—President Bush, at a Q and A in Buffalo, N.Y., April 20, 2004.

Q: Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?

A: First of all, I—right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.

We use [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] still—you're referring to the FISA court in your question—of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

—President Bush, at a press conference Dec. 19, 2005, after the New York Times reported that Bush had directed the National Security Agency to wiretap "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of phone conversations inside the United States without seeking court orders.

Comment. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked at a Dec. 20 press briefing whether the president's 2004 remarks might have been a wee bit misleading, said, "I think he was talking about [it] in the context of the Patriot Act."

In other words, Bush was reassuring his fellow Americans that he wouldn't impose warrantless wiretaps under the Patriot Act because he was already imposing warrantless wiretaps with no legal authority at all. He just forgot to mention the second part.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Okay, look, I am no big fan of Bush but I did vote for him. The reason was simple...the man has had a very difficult job placed on his shoulders with the war on terror and domestic security being as fragile as it might have ever been. Why is it that everything the man says or does is picked apart by a bunch of haters? I am not saying that there is ever any excuse for corruption, but jeeze people...at least wait till there is real corruption to start screaming about it.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
argexpat said:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

—President Bush, at a Q and A in Buffalo, N.Y., April 20, 2004.

Q: Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?

A: First of all, I—right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.

We use [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] still—you're referring to the FISA court in your question—of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

—President Bush, at a press conference Dec. 19, 2005, after the New York Times reported that Bush had directed the National Security Agency to wiretap "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of phone conversations inside the United States without seeking court orders.

Comment. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked at a Dec. 20 press briefing whether the president's 2004 remarks might have been a wee bit misleading, said, "I think he was talking about [it] in the context of the Patriot Act."

In other words, Bush was reassuring his fellow Americans that he wouldn't impose warrantless wiretaps under the Patriot Act because he was already imposing warrantless wiretaps with no legal authority at all. He just forgot to mention the second part.
argexpat, he made the April 2004 statement AFTER he was already wiretapping without a court order. He was unquestionably LYING. No surprise there.

They had a constitutional law professor from Georgetown on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. She said that neither the Constitution nor the permission to use "force" gave the president the right to wiretap without a court order.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
jallman said:
Okay, look, I am no big fan of Bush but I did vote for him. The reason was simple...the man has had a very difficult job placed on his shoulders with the war on terror and domestic security being as fragile as it might have ever been. Why is it that everything the man says or does is picked apart by a bunch of haters? I am not saying that there is ever any excuse for corruption, but jeeze people...at least wait till there is real corruption to start screaming about it.
So we're supposed to "wait till there is real corruption" before doing anything about it? I and half the voting public believe there already is real corruption. And not just corruption, but incompetence, cronyism, malfeasance, dissembling, and abuse of power.

I have a feeling, though, that nothing would ever qualify as corruption in your eyes. I don't know what else to call illegally spying on Americans and then lying about it (not to mention detaining prisoners indefinitely and rendering them to foreign contries for torture), except a "corruption" of everything we stand for.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Okay, look, I am no big fan of Bush but I did vote for him. The reason was simple...the man has had a very difficult job placed on his shoulders with the war on terror and domestic security being as fragile as it might have ever been. Why is it that everything the man says or does is picked apart by a bunch of haters? I am not saying that there is ever any excuse for corruption, but jeeze people...at least wait till there is real corruption to start screaming about it.
What theres not enough corruption yet?
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
argexpat, he made the April 2004 statement AFTER he was already wiretapping without a court order. He was unquestionably LYING. No surprise there.

They had a constitutional law professor from Georgetown on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. She said that neither the Constitution nor the permission to use "force" gave the president the right to wiretap without a court order.
I agree. And we know that FISA gave the president authority to wiretap immediately and get a court order after the fact within 72 hours. So his excuse for breaking the law (and the will of the people via Congress) that he needed to act fast is just a lot of BS. FISA would not have prevented him from getting whatever wiretaps he wanted; he had the choice of doing it legally or illegally, and he chose illegally. And now he's claiming that the authority we gave him to fight the war on terror also gave him permission to break the law and violate our civil liberties. It's the classic give an inch take a mile. Out-of-control presidents like Bush are the very reason we have a Constitution. And to think we impeached a popular president for lying about getting a blow job. :doh
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Use the whole quote...

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.
Don't be like Drudge and those RNC slugs and use partial quotes; use the whole thing and consider it in its proper context. Reading the quote in its entirety, I don't see any lie.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
argexpat said:
So we're supposed to "wait till there is real corruption" before doing anything about it? I and half the voting public believe there already is real corruption. And not just corruption, but incompetence, cronyism, malfeasance, dissembling, and abuse of power.

I have a feeling, though, that nothing would ever qualify as corruption in your eyes. I don't know what else to call illegally spying on Americans and then lying about it (not to mention detaining prisoners indefinitely and rendering them to foreign contries for torture), except a "corruption" of everything we stand for.
Whoa...nice little assumption and dismissal of my opening statement, but I expect no better based on your opening post. I am just stating a fact...the man has a very difficult job and his has been one of the most difficult times to be president. I see nothing wrong with discerning interception of phone calls for the benefit of monitoring terrorist activity. They are not interested in what you and Sven from switzerland are talking about. Conversations of that nature are forgotten before the call is even terminated. Its the communications between possible terrorist cells and their directors back in the middle east that concern the NSA. It keeps us safe...deal with it.

And I will say again, I dont think Bush has been a model president in terms of his stacking of the supreme court and his blatant cronyism, but truth be told, if I had to contend with the far left analyzing and crying out over every word I said, I would surround myself with like minded and trusted people too. Perhaps if the extreme liberals in this country were more supportive and less destructive in their attacks on the government, we might see a little more efficiency from the administration. But as it stands, the White House has to defuse idiotic spin like this thread rather than focus all their energy on more pressing problems.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Whoa...nice little assumption and dismissal of my opening statement, but I expect no better based on your opening post. I am just stating a fact...the man has a very difficult job and his has been one of the most difficult times to be president. I see nothing wrong with discerning interception of phone calls for the benefit of monitoring terrorist activity. They are not interested in what you and Sven from switzerland are talking about. Conversations of that nature are forgotten before the call is even terminated. Its the communications between possible terrorist cells and their directors back in the middle east that concern the NSA. It keeps us safe...deal with it.
If he had probably cause, he could go through the judicial process but he had to make it into a big secret. If Bush wants to investiage terrorism, thats fine. But there needs to be probable cause and he has to use proper procedures. This isn't the case here. I find it a bit hard to believe that your just going to dismiss something like this. There is no reason why our president should be spying on peace groups. The idea of going through the judicial process is so that the gov't can't just spy on whoever the **** they want.
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,428
Reaction score
3,836
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
jallman said:
Okay, look, I am no big fan of Bush but I did vote for him. The reason was simple...the man has had a very difficult job placed on his shoulders with the war on terror and domestic security being as fragile as it might have ever been. Why is it that everything the man says or does is picked apart by a bunch of haters? I am not saying that there is ever any excuse for corruption, but jeeze people...at least wait till there is real corruption to start screaming about it.
I did wait......I am waiting no more.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
Use the whole quote...



Don't be like Drudge and those RNC slugs and use partial quotes; use the whole thing and consider it in its proper context. Reading the quote in its entirety, I don't see any lie.
Bush is saying, Don't worry America, we always get court orders for wiretaps, but before the Patriot Act, we couldn't do roving wiretaps on terrorists, just drug lords. Now we can use them on terrorists, but don't forget, we always get a court order first.

Now we know that's not true. He admitted ordering wiretaps (whether they were "roving" or not is irrelevant) without a court order, in clear violation of the law. (Do you dispute this fact?) And why didn't he get a court order? Not because he'd get turned down, or it would take too long, but because he just didn't feel he had to abide by the law. He just plumb forgot to tell us that when he was assuring us the Patriot Act wouldn't violate our civil liberties. It's a lie of ommission.

P.S. On a different post you kept insisting I visit that right-wing website composed entirely of "partial quotes." Practice what you preach.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
...in clear violation of the law. Do you dispute this fact?
I certainly dispute your contention that it is a "clear violation of the law". I do not dispute that it may turn out eventually to have been illegal, but I totally dispute the certainty which you attach to your assertion.

The Assistant AG has responded to Congressional and media criticisms with a letter, here, to all of the relevant Congressional leaders. The purpose of the letter is to provide a summary of the legal authority supporting the NSA activities described by the President. In regard to the classified nature of the program it says, in part:

As an initial matter, I emphasize a few points. The President stated that these activities are " crucial to our national security." The President further explained that "the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country." These critical national security activities remain classified. All United States laws and policies governing the protection and nondisclosure of national security information. including the information relating to the activities described by the President, remain in full force and effect. The unauthorized disclosure
of classified infomiation violates federal criminal law. The Government may provide further classified briefings to the Congress on these activities in an appropriate manner. Any such briefings will be conducted in a manner that will not endanger national security.
So where is the outrage of the "outing" of a classified program that so in evidence over Valerie Plame?

In what may be the first relatively exhaustive listing of the what the admin believes are the legal precedents for the NSA program, the letter notes the following:

This constitutional authority includes the authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States, as all federal appellate courts, including at least four circuits, to have addressed the issue have concluded. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 7 17, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 2002) ("[AIII the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority. . . ."). The
Supreme Court has said that warrants are generally required in the context of purely donrestic threats. hut it expressly distinguished,foreign threats. See United States v. United States District Cotrrt, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972). As Justice Byron White recognized almost 40 years ago, Presidents have long exercised the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national
security purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 363-64
(1967) (White, J., concurring).
Precedent is hugely important in legal circles, and here the DoJ has provided quite a bit. The DoJ has clearly documented what the President feels is his legal authority for the NSA program; it is impressive and will be persuasive to many, but certainly not to all.

Since the precedents will not persuade all, the matter is yet to be settled. IMO, this will go first to congressional hearings and then, if necessary, to the courts where the applicability of these precedents will be considered.

What is becoming more and more clear, though, is that those people who are inclined to attribute anything and everything possible to a "Bush lie" will continue to do so, regardless of evidence to the contrary. The only lie to be found here so far is that in the eyes of those beholders who see Bush lies in the clouds, in the grass, in the tea leaves, in chicken entrails, etc. Among this group, pragmatism and objectivity are completely alien concepts.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Your links say nothing about anyone lying and your thread is spreading disinformation and it must stop. The president ordered survellance on known al-quida operatives and those having repeated communication with al-quida. It's not as if the president is spying on you or I.

I am glad he did it. It's why I elected him for a secod term - to go after the terrorists. It is treasonous to have leaked this program. The NY Tmes needs to be held accountable for teir unAmerican actions and be eavily fined for aiding and abetting the enemy. This leak is a major blow to the safety of our country.

No doubt, the loonies will now add this to their growing list of reasons why the president must be ousted. They are so desperate and sad....it's laughable.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
KCConservative said:
Your links say nothing about anyone lying..
shrub claimed he was going to use warrants, and he didn't. So he lied.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
I am glad he did it. It's why I elected him for a secod term - to go after the terrorists. It is treasonous to have leaked this program. The NY Tmes needs to be held accountable for teir unAmerican actions and be eavily fined for aiding and abetting the enemy. This leak is a major blow to the safety of our country.
Uh... How is this treason, exactly? Definition of treason:

"...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."

The NYT is certainly not doing the first two, and the last one is most definitely debatable. Exposing a survaillance program that has legal dubiousness is not harmful to the country. If anything, it is beneficial, helping to hold officials accountable for their actions.

I don't see what advantage the terrorists have in knowing this information, so I really fail to see a "major blow to the safety of our country".
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
shrub claimed he was going to use warrants, and he didn't. So he lied.
No, he did not lie. At least, not in the context of the quote to which you are atttributing to a lie.
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
argexpat said:
I agree. And we know that FISA gave the president authority to wiretap immediately and get a court order after the fact within 72 hours. So his excuse for breaking the law (and the will of the people via Congress) that he needed to act fast is just a lot of BS.
Actually, according to an interview on HARDBALL earlier this week Sen. Biden said that after a "declaration of war" the President has 15 days to go to the FISA court to seek a warrant!

This is another fine, fine example of Bush's disregard for all of us and our laws. How often will he put himself above the law to further his agenda? When does the $hit hit the fan? Did someone say Nov. 2006?
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
So where is the outrage of the "outing" of a classified program that so in evidence over Valerie Plame?
Makes no sense to me, this statement? How is it relevant in the context of this thread? Diverting the topic away from the fact that Bush admitted authorizing wiretaps by the NSA of people within the USA.

Newsflash....the NSA is not allowed, by it's charter, to spy on anything within the USA. It's supposed to keep track of EXTERNAL affairs, and this is the heart of the matter.

It's actually quite remarkeable that Bush publicly confessed to violating the FISA act and to using an agency improperly! Looks like King George is giving Americans another reason to overthrow his government just like in 1776!

The hearings that will take place after the Alito hearings should be quite interesting, indeed.
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
Your links say nothing about anyone lying and your thread is spreading disinformation and it must stop. The president ordered survellance on known al-quida operatives and those having repeated communication with al-quida. It's not as if the president is spying on you or I.

I am glad he did it.
And how do you know that exactly? Herein lies the real issue! There's NOTHING to stop King George from "spying on you and I" if he breaks the law under the guise of "national security." The FISA court was set up for exactly this purpose, to have a check an balance on the Executive branch so that it would not need to take away our liberties.

The other part of this story that's not getting as much play is the spying also being done on PETA, Greenpeace and other groups that are not any sort of threat to anyone...
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
steen said:
shrub claimed he was going to use warrants, and he didn't. So he lied.
Excellent point! HARDBALL did a piece by David Schuster showing speech after speech Bush has made flat out saying that we ALWAYS get warrants to wiretap, and in some of these speeches he even mentions the FISA court.

Therefore, admitting what he now has blurted out he has, in fact, admitted to lying to all of us. Shocking, I know!

Why can't Bush use the truth to get his agenda through? Why is it necessary to lie to the world? Is that the image we want for ourselves? Is that what we want to teach our children? I think not!
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
National Security - The territorial integrity, sovereignty, and international freedom of action of the United States. Intelligence activities relating to national security encompass all the military, economic, political, scientific, technological, and other aspects of foreign developments that pose actual or potential threats to US national interests.

Classified - Any information that has been determined to require protection against unauthorized disclosure to avoid harm to US national security. The classifications TOP SECRET, SECRET, and CONFIDENTIAL are used to designate such information, referred to as "classified information".

Guess what? The NSA wire tapping was classified publishing and leaking confidential information is illegal and punishable by a $10,000 fine and not more than ten years in prison, not lying about it is a crime, the NYT's is guilty of that crime and so are the Democratic Senators who leaked the information.

The actual wire tapping without a warrant is not a crime as provided by the inherent war powers of the president that the Congress gave in a joint resolution on September 14, 2001 giving the president to use any means of force to bring down AlQaeda.

The wire tapping is not the crime leaking the story and endangering the lives of American citizens for partisan politics is the crime it is a heinous crime that demands convictions.
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Guess what? The NSA wire tapping was classified publishing and leaking confidential information is illegal and punishable by a $10,000 fine and not more than ten years in prison, not lying about it is a crime, the NYT's is guilty of that crime and so are the Democratic Senators who leaked the information.
Democratic Senators leaking information? Please prove this accusation? Those are very strong words yet you do not provide any proof whatsoever?

How come there's not an investigation into the NY Times if it's guilty of a crime? Does that mean the government is guilty of a cover-up or does it mean that Freedom of the Press is protected by the Constitution?
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The actual wire tapping without a warrant is not a crime as provided by the inherent war powers of the president that the Congress gave in a joint resolution on September 14, 2001 giving the president to use any means of force to bring down AlQaeda.
With all due respect, you do not know that to be a fact, either way. Just because King George says it's legal doesn't make it so, no matter how many times he or Queen Cheney says it's so.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The wire tapping is not the crime leaking the story and endangering the lives of American citizens for partisan politics is the crime it is a heinous crime that demands convictions.
Yada Yada....time will see if you're wrong or not...
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
26 X World Champs said:
Democratic Senators leaking information? Please prove this accusation? Those are very strong words yet you do not provide any proof whatsoever?
My proof is that the only people who knew about it outside of the NSA are President Bush the Attorney General, the Vice President, and the Democratic Senators on the Intelligence Committee now who stood to gain by leaking that information? It may be circumstantial evidence but cases are won on circumstatntial evidence all the time.
CHAMPS said:
How come there's not an investigation into the NY Times if it's guilty of a crime? Does that mean the government is guilty of a cover-up or does it mean that Freedom of the Press is protected by the Constitution?
No this situation it is not protected by the first amendment:
Sec. 798. Disclosure of classified information
>
> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
> transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person,
> or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or
> interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign
> government to the detriment of the United States any classified
> information -
> (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code,
> cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any
> foreign government; or
> (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or
> repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or
> prepared or
> planned for use by the United States or any foreign
> government
> for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
> (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the
> United States or any foreign government; or
> (4) obtained by the process of communication intelligence
> from
> the communications of any foreign government, knowing the
> same to
> have been obtained by such processes -
> Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
>years, or both.

Champs said:
With all due respect, you do not know that to be a fact, either way. Just because King George says it's legal doesn't make it so, no matter how many times he or Queen Cheney says it's so.
Actually I do know it to be fact and not because I heard Cheney say it but because it simply is:

Here's the oath the president must take:

:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

And that of the vice president:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
and here's the authority of the president to control the military:

Artilcle II
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States
Now here's the war powers of the president:

War Powers Resolution of 1973

Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


Now here are the war powers granted to the president by a joint resolution of congress in accordance with the war powers resolution of 1973:

Joint Resolution Authorizing The Use Of Force Against Terrorists
September 14, 2001
This is the text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives:

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements


Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.


Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

CHAMPS said:
Yada Yada....time will see if you're wrong or not...
Well it didn't take very long did it?
 
Last edited:

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
My proof is that the only people who knew about it outside of the NSA are President Bush the Attorney General, the Vice President, and the Democratic Senators on the Intelligence Committee now who stood to gain by leaking that information? It may be circumstantial evidence but cases are won on circumstatntial evidence all the time.
Spy cases? I'm interested in knowing all the different spy cases that were decided solely on circumstantial evidence? Would you please show me the cases that were "won on circumstantial evidence all the time"?
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Actually I do know it to be fact and not because I heard Cheney say it but because it simply is:

Here's the oath the president must take:

and here's the authority of the president to control the military:

Now here's the war powers of the president:

Now here are the war powers granted to the president by a joint resolution of congress in accordance with the war powers resolution of 1973:
With all due respect what your long post proves is YOUR beliefs, not facts. Facts are still to be determined, first at Senate hearings and then, who knows, maybe in Senate trials of impeachment.

The truth is that no one knows, you or I if Bush's lies in this matter broke the law. The mere fact that Sen. Specter (Republican) feels that an investigation is necessary shows that your argument is not fact, at least not yet. Actually, your point of view sounds like a "slam dunk" which, if memory serves me, is what another George, Tenet, said about WMDs in Iraq.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
26 X World Champs said:
Spy cases? I'm interested in knowing all the different spy cases that were decided solely on circumstantial evidence? Would you please show me the cases that were "won on circumstantial evidence all the time"?

With all due respect what your long post proves is YOUR beliefs, not facts. Facts are still to be determined, first at Senate hearings and then, who knows, maybe in Senate trials of impeachment.

The truth is that no one knows, you or I if Bush's lies in this matter broke the law. The mere fact that Sen. Specter (Republican) feels that an investigation is necessary shows that your argument is not fact, at least not yet. Actually, your point of view sounds like a "slam dunk" which, if memory serves me, is what another George, Tenet, said about WMDs in Iraq.
Good for Specter he isn't omniscient and politicians often cow tow to the opinions of the media Specter is simply misinformed as to the nature of the situation as I have clearly demonstrated to you not through opinion but with the rule of law how can you say that it's my opinion when I gave you the law verbatim? Good one about Tenent though lmfao.
 
Top Bottom