It matches his opinion, so there was no need to look further.oldreliable67 said:python,
You might (or might not) change your opinion if you would base it on a little more research than moveon.org alone. Try to get at least one unbiased opinion.
oldreliable67 said:python,
You might (or might not) change your opinion if you would base it on a little more research than moveon.org alone. Try to get at least one unbiased opinion.
KCConservative said:It matches his opinion, so there was no need to look further.
python said:Why don't you give it a read and tell me where these powers Bush is claiming are detailed?
python416 said:Here is the new MoveOn add:
https://political.moveon.org/donate/notillegal-QT.html
IANAL, but this NSA program seems to be a total overstep of presidental authority.
The FISA court has a provision that allows court approval to be obtained after the fact. This invalidates the "need for speed" argument. The main reasons, that I can think of, for not using FISA are:
* FISA leaves records of activity and the administration does not want to be held to account for their actions
* there is a standard of probable cause that the administration does not feel it can meet
Either of these motives is an indication of the Bush administration
feeling that they need to operate outside the law.
If they really believe in the rule of law, they should move change the
law to fit the times. If not, they are just showing their contempt
for the rule of law.
python416 said:Either of these motives is an indication of the Bush administration
feeling that they need to operate outside the law.
If they really believe in the rule of law, they should move change the
law to fit the times. If not, they are just showing their contempt
for the rule of law.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.htmlpython416 said:My opinion of the legality has been there a long time before the ad. It is based on a decent understanding of the US legal system and the Constitution.
Why don't you give it a read and tell me where these powers Bush is claiming are detailed? http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html
Or maybe give the FISA a look over? http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf
The administration is on shakey ground, and law makers on both sides of the asile know it.
python said:The FISA court has a provision that allows court approval to be obtained after the fact. This invalidates the "need for speed" argument
oldreliable67 said:aps & python,
Here is a really simple question for y'all: if the Dems disagree with the administration's understanding of what the AUMF authorizes, why don't they present clarifying legislation telling the administration that its interpretation is incorrect?
This would enable the Senate to vote on whether it thinks listening to calls from al Qaeda to the US is a necessary and proper measure to prevent another attack.
NYStateofMind said:Personally, I think it is silly to continue to call this a partisan issue, when there are Republicans who are uncomfortable with what the Bush admin. is doing, and there are Democrats who are supporting it. It is a conflict between the Executive and Legislative branches, and needs to be reviewed by the Judicial branch.
If both sides are so confident that they are on firm legal ground, neither should have a problem going to the court. It is an important issue, and it needs to be decided.
aps said:The issue isn't about whether the US should listen to calls from al Qadea--the issue relates solely to whether warrantless surveillance is appropriate in this circumstance.
Huh? Where did I suggest that ANYONE should be in jail?easyt65 said:This whole issue began as a/the latest Partisan Ambush on Bush. The only person who needs to be in jail right now is the person who leaked this classified progam and the reporter(s) who printed it/reported it!
Where did I say that I thought anyone had the right to expose a classified program? Or that I think no one wants to impeach Bush? Are you sure you are responding to MY post?easyt65 said:Just because politicians are 'uncomfortable' with a power afforded to the President by the Consitution, a power exercised/used by Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Clinton to name only a few, does not give ANYONE the right to report the classified program, thereby weakening our own ability to fight Terrorism and defend ourselves, or try to use it as a political weapon to take down the President in a time of war, making that a very biased issue. Don;t try to sound like you do not believe that there isn't even 1 politician out there that sees this as an opportunity to 'take down'/Impeach bush!
easyt65 said:If the politicians want to turn down the rhetoric, stop attacking Bush like its some kind of inquisition, and address the program/power rather than attack Bush, I am all for it. As I mentioned in my last post, power-hungry morons like Leahy want to seize control of that power afforded to the Presidents, past and present, for their very own, shackling future Presidents from having the ability and power required to protect the country!
aps said:Well, with the Judiciary Committee holding hearings right now, I would say that it would not be the appropriate time to present clarifying legislation.
Come on, oldreliable. Don't do the usual republican spin game--accuse the democrats of not wanting anyone to listen to al Qaeda as it makes its next plan to attack us. What a disappointment.
The issue isn't about whether the US should listen to calls from al Qadea--the issue relates solely to whether warrantless surveillance is appropriate in this circumstance.
Or is it that they know, but won't publicly admit, that the administration is doing the right thing? There is no partisan advantage to gained in doing that, is there?
hipsterdufus said:This hearing was a charade. Why didn't Alberto Gonzales get sworn in? We can swear in baseball players but not big oil execs and the AG. :roll: Then Al can spin the soap opera anyway he wants, without running the risk of perjury.
I would have walked out if AG wasn't sworn in. It's a disgrace.
oldreliable67 said:Baloney. What better time? The issue is in forefront of voter's minds and presents the dems with an opportunity to gain partisan advantage. The only reason that I can think of for not doing so is that they know they might not get enough crossover votes and the legislation might fail, thereby strengthening the hated Bush administration's position.
Or is it that they know, but won't publicly admit, that the administration is doing the right thing? There is no partisan advantage to gained in doing that, is there?
Disappointing is right - for the Dems. The Dem rhetoric yesterday just confirmed that the Dems don't have a leg to stand on.
I hate to repeat myself, but...baloney. If the Dems disagree with the administration's understanding of what the AUMF authorizes, why don't they present clarifying legislation telling the administration that its interpretation is incorrect?
hipsterdufus said:This hearing was a charade. Why didn't Alberto Gonzales get sworn in? We can swear in baseball players but not big oil execs and the AG. :roll: Then Al can spin the soap opera anyway he wants, without running the risk of perjury.
I would have walked out if AG wasn't sworn in. It's a disgrace.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?