• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

FISA Judges say Bush within the law (1 Viewer)

aps said:
Do you need me to define wary?

Still in there digging, eh? Good for you.

So how would you compare this Kornblum quote...

Judge Kornblum: To be admissible, the evidence would have had to have been lawfully seized or lawfully obtained and the standard that the district judge would use is that, depending upon where this is, is the law in his circuit. In most of the circuits, the law is clear that the President has the authority to do warrantless surveillance if it is to collect foreign intelligence and it is targeting foreign powers or agents. If the facts support that, then the district judge could make that finding and admit the evidence, just as they did in Truong-Humphrey. [emphasis added]

with this Kornblum statement?

"I am very wary of inherent authority" claimed by presidents, testified U.S. Magistrate Judge Allan Kornblum. "It sounds very much like King George."

Appears very much to me that the 'wary of inherent authority' statement is a general statement meant to describe all presidents, while in the specific case of the NSA surveillance program, he states that the law is clear: "the President has the authority to do warrantless surveillance if it is to collect foreign intelligence and it is targeting foreign powers or agents."

Can I assist you with any other details, like reading comprehension?
 
oldreliable67 said:
Still in there digging, eh? Good for you.

LOL Okay, I know I was being obnoxious in saying that. I apologize.


Appears very much to me that the 'wary of inherent authority' statement is a general statement meant to describe all presidents, while in the specific case of the NSA surveillance program, he states that the law is clear: "the President has the authority to do warrantless surveillance if it is to collect foreign intelligence and it is targeting foreign powers or agents."

I think there is no doubt that the president can conduct warrantless surveillance when it involves foreign intelligence. But what about when one person is in the United States?

Can I assist you with any other details, like reading comprehension?

Only if you'll let me turn the pages of the dictionary to help you find the word wary. ;) Touche, by the way.
 
hipsterdufus said:
Here's what Judge Baker said. How is that not true?
It has nothing to do with "what's true"...Let's assume that what all of these judges are saying are their own words...

Why is a reporter only quoting certain judges?...

Why?...Because the other ones will negate his intent...

If two judges say "Yes" and two judges say "No", writing an article with the headline "Judges say 'Yes' and ONLY showing the text of the two judges in agreement with the headline is false reporting...

Or, as in New York Times-speak...The status quo...
 
I think there is no doubt that the president can conduct warrantless surveillance when it involves foreign intelligence. But what about when one person is in the United States?

Therein lies a distinction that, IMO, the courts will have to help us with. My inclination is that with proper documentation (of some reason to suspect that at least one party is affiliated with a terrorist org), supervision (periodic Justice Dept audits and Congressional oversight), and one party being external to the US, then we should go with the program. But thats just me, and I'd like the courts to tell me if I'm leaning in the right direction, and if not, why not.
 
aps said:
I will read the transcript later. I must have misunderstood who spoke. I thought only some of the judges were former judges. Regardless, I find it hard to believe that if these former judges said that Bush had the authority, why this story would not be on the cover of all the major newspapers.

THEY DON"T SUPPORT BUSH, it's quite what I expected. They certainly quoted and featured John Dean, geez what on earth puts him in a position of authority on this matter.

Several former Justice officials also spoke and clearly saying Bush was acting within his constitutionally delegated authority.

Are you trying to claim the Washington Times is printing made up quotes? I hope not.


I mean, come on, guys. The media harped on this for weeks! And don't say that they are afraid to admit they were wrong. There are plenty of newspapers who are willing to report news that isn't favorable to its political leanings. When professors from the top law schools in the United States have questioned the authority, I have a hard time thinking that all the former judges from the FISA court who testified found that Bush had the authority.

The courts have already ruled on it and he has the authority. That liberal professors from liberal colleges don't like doesn't change the law.
 
oldreliable67 said:
IMO, a definitive conclusion is remains begging for a court test, though I lean towards agreement with the Washington Times, the former FISA judges and a group of legal scholars that the program is legal and within the President's authority.

The courts have and they have all said he has the inherient authority to order the wiretaps.
 
hipsterdufus said:
Sorry, the moonie paper isn't a source, at all.

Yes it is and when you can debate the facts let us know and we'll pay attention to you again.
 
hipsterdufus said:
Sorry, the moonie paper isn't a source, at all.
How often do we hear you complain when someone attacks the source rather than debate the issue? If The Washington Times is wrong about this, then refute it with something substantial. Otherwise, you're blowing hot air.
 
KCConservative said:
How often do we hear you complain when someone attacks the source rather than debate the issue? If The Washington Times is wrong about this, then refute it with something substantial. Otherwise, you're blowing hot air.

I think the title of their article is a misrepresentation. I don't know much about the Washington Times, as I have never read it because of my belief of its lack of reliability. When something is not credible, I am not sure someone needs to refute it with evidence.
 
Stinger said:
Yes it is and when you can debate the facts let us know and we'll pay attention to you again.

I'm happy to debate the facts, the moonie paper isn't interested in checking them. If that's what you consider a "source" then you might as well start quoting the national enquirer.
 
KCConservative said:
How often do we hear you complain when someone attacks the source rather than debate the issue? If The Washington Times is wrong about this, then refute it with something substantial. Otherwise, you're blowing hot air.

But...but...you guys do that ALL the time.:roll:

Maybe we all aren't as divided as we thought we were. :rofl
 
hipsterdufus said:
I'm happy to debate the facts, the moonie paper isn't interested in checking them. If that's what you consider a "source" then you might as well start quoting the national enquirer.


When you want to debate the facts which they post. Your dismisalls out of hand only demonstrate you can't.
 
aps said:
I don't know much about the Washington Times, as I have never read it because of my belief of its lack of reliability.
Help me understand this, aps. How did you arrive at this belief without having ever read it?
 
aps said:
I think the title of their article is a misrepresentation. I don't know much about the Washington Times, as I have never read it because of my belief of its lack of reliability. When something is not credible, I am not sure someone needs to refute it with evidence.

Give specific facts and instances that show that the WT is not credible. Back up your facts with citations from reliable sources.
 
KCConservative said:
Help me understand this, aps. How did you arrive at this belief without having ever read it?

Based on other people's opinions, even my friends who live here and are republicans. I honestly do not know any person who I respect who thinks it is a reputable newspaper. I have never read the National Enquirer as well, and I think that based upon its reputation, I know it's a joke.
 
QUOTE=aps] Stinger, I read the NYT article yesterday....When I saw the article, I hoped it was going to say that Bush violated the Constitution, [/QUOTE]
So, is this the reason why you subscribe to the NYT? It gives you the hope...
each time when you open it

aps said:
Here's the Kansas City Star's interpretation of the hearing, and it seems to have been more aligned with the New York Times than the ridiculous article from the Washington Times. LOL
And Kansas City Star's INTERPRETATIONS look like another hope aligned with the NYT. [/QUOTE]

aps said:
I don't know much about the Washington Times, as I have never read it because of my belief of its lack of reliability. When something is not credible, I am not sure someone needs to refute it with evidence.
The Washington Times does not give you so much hope to read desirable INTERPRETATIONS about Bush, so you BELEIVE in its lack of reliability and you belief makes say the Wash. Times IS something not credible. Good logic.
 
Why base your opinion on partial transcripts when you can watch the entire hearing here: rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter032806_nsa.rm ?
 
alphamale said:
Give specific facts and instances that show that the WT is not credible. Back up your facts with citations from reliable sources.

The moonie paper often acts as a low level conduit, putting blatentently false stories out there, along with Drudge, in the hopes that lazy journalists and the mass media will pick them up w/out checking the facts. Remember, the WT has no fact checker.

Look at the following stories on the moonie paper:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/lynxgate.html
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/080866.htm
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1569
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603150007 (vdeo clip)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408130001 (audio clip w/ transcript)
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/outlets/thewashingtontimes

Here's a little snippet from the last source:

The Washington Times

The Times is owned and influenced by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who declared himself the Messiah in a March 2004 Capitol Hill ceremony. In a 2002 speech, Moon declared his political intentions for the Times, saying that "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world." The Times has operated in the red since it was founded in 1982; it loses an estimated $20 million annually and has lost an estimated $1 billion over its existence. The Moon-controlled corporate parent of the Times, News World Communications, also owns the United Press International wire service and published the conservative news magazine Insight on the News until discontinuing the print version in 2004.

Editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden has been with the paper since its inception. Pruden is sympathetic to neo-Confederate causes -- in a speech to the United Daughters of the Confederacy, he declared that "Southerners ... hold loyalty to two countries in our hearts" -- and the Times employs a neo-Confederate activist. The Times has also quoted from a "white nationalist" website several times.
 
Hoot said:
I'm sure most of you have read this, but I thought it was interesting to read John Dean's comments on Bush regarding wiretapping.

http://sacunion.com/pages/nation/articles/8093/

Apparently, Senator John Cornyn was rather rude to John Dean. After the hearing, someone asked him about that. He said something like, "That's okay. He'll be in my next book about Republicans without a conscience." LOL

On a side note, I was at the Container Store yesterday and ran into Senator Cornyn and said hello to him. He is rather handsome, and his wife is very attractive and elegant looking.
 
Speaking of John Dean...

Senator Leahy has expressed his inclination to support Feingold's censure of Bush over the NSA surveillance program, in part by relying on the 'verdict' of convicted felon John Dean. Senator Hatch, meanwhile, resurrected an article Dean wrote five days after 9/11, in which he argued that "the president does not need congressional authority to respond." Dean argued that the Constitution "does not put the Congress in charge of counterterrorism, which is an executive function."

Dean always did have trouble keeping his stories straight. But, then, as Senator Cornyn pointed out, Dean's testimony might be part of a book-selling effort.

Source.
 
oldreliable67 said:
Speaking of John Dean...

Senator Leahy has expressed his inclination to support Feingold's censure of Bush over the NSA surveillance program, in part by relying on the 'verdict' of convicted felon John Dean. Senator Hatch, meanwhile, resurrected an article Dean wrote five days after 9/11, in which he argued that "the president does not need congressional authority to respond." Dean argued that the Constitution "does not put the Congress in charge of counterterrorism, which is an executive function."

Dean always did have trouble keeping his stories straight. But, then, as Senator Cornyn pointed out, Dean's testimony might be part of a book-selling effort.

Source.

I like books. ;)

Dean made a good point the other day. If Nixon had been censured early on, it would have avoided the great cancer that ended up growing on his presidency, which in the end, lead to Nixon's disgraceful resignation.

This story isn't going away any time soon...
 
hipsterdufus said:
I like books. ;)

Dean made a good point the other day. If Nixon had been censured early on, it would have avoided the great cancer that ended up growing on his presidency, which in the end, lead to Nixon's disgraceful resignation.

This story isn't going away any time soon...

Censure, even if it were constituion which I don't believe it is, does what? Nothing. It's a worthless peice of paper. Censure is an internal mechinism not a check and balance as the constitution dictates. No where does the constitution give the Congress the authority nor power to do so. The President can simply laugh it off. It can't have any punishment attached to it, it can't have any sanctions. And do we really want to start such practice? Everytime a congress wants to express how it doesn't like the President if passes a censure? Where is the "balance" against such a "check"? If Feingold believes Bush broke the law then he can turn over his evidence to the FBI and he can try to get someone in the House to begin an impeachment. The president doesn't work for the congress and he reports to it no more than they report to him, but if they believe he broke the law or violated his oath of office then they should bring charges of impeachment, that is what the constitution gives them.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom