NSA scandal demands impeachment and arrest!

[TimmyBoy]

Everybody is entitled to their opinions, of course. I wonder however, if you can find a post anywhere in all your posts on DebatePolitics in which you had anything good to say about this President or his policies or his vision? If you can't think of one or find one somewhere, then don't you think only those who share your outlook will share your opinion? Many do. You'll have to settle for that, I think.

I did have one good thing to say about Bush in one of my posts and that he does have backbone. This is a good quality. Now if the Congress would have some backbone as well, this country will be on the right track.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Everybody is entitled to their opinions, of course. I wonder however, if you can find a post anywhere in all your posts on DebatePolitics in which you had anything good to say about this President or his policies or his vision? If you can't think of one or find one somewhere, then don't you think only those who share your outlook will share your opinion? Many do. You'll have to settle for that, I think.

The job of the Congress is to keep the President in check. The Congress has failed miserably in doing it's job in my view because they lack backbone unlike Bush.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Trusting the government with your civil liberties is like making a deal with the devil. The founding fathers understood this concept and it is one of many reasons why they enacted the form of government we have. But I feel that the Patriot Act is putting too much faith or trust in the government not to violate our freedoms. The founding fathers certainly didn't trust government and I don't either, especially when it comes to my freedom. You never make a deal with the devil.

And there you go. Positive, optimistic, forward looking and not the least bit critical, damning, pessimistic or gloom and doom. :smile: I rest my case.

 

[TimmyBoy]

And there you go. Positive, optimistic, forward looking and not the least bit critical, damning, pessimistic or gloom and doom. :smile: I rest my case.

I am not being pessimistic. I am telling it like it is. You don't trust government with your freedom or your civil liberties, not unless you want to lose them.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I am not being pessimistic. I am telling it like it is. You don't trust government with your freedom or your civil liberties, not unless you want to lose them.

I don't want or intend to pick a fight TimmyBoy. Your posts are so uniformly angry and pessimistic I simply can't relate. I prefer to understand that the people are the government and the people decide, even dictate what sort of government they will have. Without laws enforced by the government there are no freedoms and no civil liberties. When all we can see is what is wrong and we refuse to acknowledge anything that is right, we are screwed pure and simple because nothing will ever be allowed to get better at least in the minds of those who prefer the negative.

I won't go down that road. I think I am as realistic as the next person and I certainly see plenty that is wrong, much that can be improved, but I can also see what is good and right. I recommend that sort of outlook. It does a body good. I wish you nothing but the best nevertheless.

 

[TimmyBoy]

I don't want or intend to pick a fight TimmyBoy. Your posts are so uniformly angry and pessimistic I simply can't relate. I prefer to understand that the people are the government and the people decide, even dictate what sort of government they will have. Without laws enforced by the government there are no freedoms and no civil liberties. When all we can see is what is wrong and we refuse to acknowledge anything that is right, we are screwed pure and simple because nothing will ever be allowed to get better at least in the minds of those who prefer the negative.

I won't go down that road. I think I am as realistic as the next person and I certainly see plenty that is wrong, much that can be improved, but I can also see what is good and right. I recommend that sort of outlook. It does a body good. I wish you nothing but the best nevertheless.

I just returned to respond to your post. Fight? What? You don't like to fight? I personally enjoy fighting myself. I don't mind kicking ass when the time is right. You keep saying that I am pessimistic and that is not true. Angry? Sometimes, but this is normal for anybody. Especially if you know you are getting screwed like the American people are. These laws that you say are designed to protect freedom are not designed to protect freedom. They are designed to destroy freedom, not protect it. So let's get the facts straight. The question is, does AlbqOwl have balls and is willing to fight for true freedom and to think for himself? Or is he just going to let be a mindless robot who doesn't think for himself and just repeats government slogans like "War on Terror" and niavely believes everything he is told. Gets some balls man and stop BSing people. The only person that is going to take of your freedom is you and nobody else. You can be optomistic but also tell it straight. You, on the other hand, don't want to tell it straight it and prefer to ignore some cold hard facts that need to be addressed to solve the problem.

 

[hipsterdufus]

The NSA scandal demands the impeachment

I wouldn't impeach the president yet. :mrgreen:
That's the offense. Kudos to the NYT for breaking the story - why they waited so long only shows how scared the media is to do their job these days.

 

[hipsterdufus]

New point of fact:

The Supreme Court and the 4th circuit court has ruled that the President has broader constitutional authority to use any means to protect the security of our nation during war time so this is in reality a non-issue. The issue here is that someone leaked classified information in this case and in the case of the secret prison camps and whoever leaked that information is in a gross violation of the law and the penalty for this crime is very severe.

The penalty for violating FISA and spying on someone without a court order is imprisonment for up to five years.

I don't think we have officially "declared war" against terror either.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The penalty for violating FISA and spying on someone without a court order is imprisonment for up to five years.

I don't think we have officially "declared war" against terror either.

Doesn't matter we declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq and we are still in a state of war. There is no law that can trump a Supreme Court decision.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I wouldn't impeach the president yet. :mrgreen:
That's the offense. Kudos to the NYT for breaking the story - why they waited so long only shows how scared the media is to do their job these days.

Why they waited so long is because that piece of **** who wrote the article is trying to sell his book that just happened to coincide with the timing of the story oh and the NYT's waited so long cuz they wanted to throw a monkeys wrench into the renewal of the Patriot Act.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Doesn't matter we declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq and we are still in a state of war. There is no law that can trump a Supreme Court decision.

Serious question - did we officially declare war in Iraq and Afghanastan? I thought only congress could declare war.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Doesn't matter we declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq and we are still in a state of war. There is no law that can trump a Supreme Court decision.

Trajan, if the shoe were on the other foot, and a Dem President violated FISA like this. You would be screaming for impeachment right?

You don't have to answer....

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Trajan, if the shoe were on the other foot, and a Dem President violated FISA like this. You would be screaming for impeachment right?

You don't have to answer....

Well actually if a Democrat had been in office during 9-11 and the Republicans decided to put partisan politics ahead of the nations security I would probably be a Democrat right now, the way things panned out I now vote Republican face it the Democrats are defeating themselves.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Serious question - did we officially declare war in Iraq and Afghanastan? I thought only congress could declare war.

Serious question deserves a serious answer not according to the war powers resolution section 2 subsections C2 and C3:

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.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Serious question - did we officially declare war in Iraq and Afghanastan? I thought only congress could declare war.

Congress hasn't declared war since 1941 and yes only Congress has the power to declare war. The real problem here is that the executive branch has bestowed powers upon itself and ordered goverment officials and workers to commit a federal crime.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Congress hasn't declared war since 1941 and yes only Congress has the power to declare war. The real problem here is that the executive branch has bestowed powers upon itself and ordered goverment officials and workers to commit a federal crime.

wrong again sparky look up.

 

[oldreliable67]

the executive branch has bestowed powers upon itself and ordered goverment officials and workers to commit a federal crime.

An as yet unproven assertion. Many are really jumping the gun here, IMO. Lots of allegations and assertions when not yet sufficient knowledge extant to draw conclusions for or against - unless one is pre-disposed to draw a specific conclusion regardless of whatever the evidence turns out to be. We're all entitled to our opinions, but until the facts are known, lets recognize that opinions are just that, opinions, not facts.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Trajan, if the shoe were on the other foot, and a Dem President violated FISA like this. You would be screaming for impeachment right?

You don't have to answer....

I answered your last question on the previous page and I will add that not only does the president have this authority granted under the inherent clause of the constitution during wartime but FISA doesn't apply overseas, these were phone calls coming in from overseas from known AlQaeda suspects outside of the U.S. to people within the U.S; furthermore,you have yet to prove that the peoples calls from within the United States are even U.S. citizens.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

wrong again sparky look up.

Wrong again sparky look right here.

"(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."

In other words only Congress can make those decisions. The president CANNOT bestow powers upon himself.

"(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."

2 out of 3 of those haven't happened. The powers of the CIC are restricted both by the Constitution and by other indirect laws.

An as yet unproven assertion. Many are really jumping the gun here, IMO. Lots of allegations and assertions when not yet sufficient knowledge extant to draw conclusions for or against - unless one is pre-disposed to draw a specific conclusion regardless of whatever the evidence turns out to be. We're all entitled to our opinions, but until the facts are known, lets recognize that opinions are just that, opinions, not facts.

The facts we know are:

1. The executive branch ordered government officials and employees to spy without permission of a judge.

2. Spying without consent from a judge is a federal crime.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Wrong again sparky look right here.

"(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."

In other words only Congress can make those decisions. The president CANNOT bestow powers upon himself.

Irrelevent due to the Supreme Court and 4th district courts interpretation of the Inherent Powers clause and the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

"(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."

2 out of 3 of those haven't happened. The powers of the CIC are restricted both by the Constitution and by other indirect laws.

I already put this part in on the last page to prove my point you're misreading the war powers resolution of 1973 it doesn't take all three notice that is an 'or,' in there not an 'and,' it only takes one out of the three for the president to declare war and to be technical about it 2 out of the three HAVE happened do you forget that we were attacked on 911?

The facts we know are:

1. The executive branch ordered government officials and employees to spy without permission of a judge.

2. Spying without consent from a judge is a federal crime.

Here are the real facts FISA doesn't apply overseas and the inherent powers of the president granted to the president during war time make the need for FISA warrants irrelevent anyways.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Irrelevent due to the Supreme Court and 4th district courts interpretation of the Inherent Powers clause and the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

As I said in another thread, the Inherent Powers Clause only serves to derive laws and powers with a constitutional basis. The ones this administration have chosen do not. The War Powers Resolution does not give the president the power to bestow powers upon himself and CLEARLY restricts the powers given in that particular act ie the president MUST defer to Congress. The Joint Resolution does the same.

I already put this part in on the last page to prove my point you're misreading the war powers resolution of 1973 it doesn't take all three notice that is an 'or,' in there not an 'and,' it only takes one out of the three for the president to declare war and to be technical about it 2 out of the three HAVE happened do you forget that we were attacked on 911?

Under no circumstances does the president have the power to declare war. The War Powers Resolution gives the president permission to engage in hostilities per permission from Congress and to continue hostilities only if Congress declares war or authorizes a continuence of hostilities within 60 days of the start of those hostilities. Again we see that the presidential powers are limited. The system of checks and balances should be enough for you to understand this.

Here are the real facts FISA doesn't apply overseas and the inherent powers of the president granted to the president during war time make the need for FISA warrants irrelevent anyways.

War has not been declared and some of the calls were made from U.S. soil.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

As I said in another thread, the Inherent Powers Clause only serves to derive laws and powers with a constitutional basis. The ones this administration have chosen do not. The War Powers Resolution does not give the president the power to bestow powers upon himself and CLEARLY restricts the powers given in that particular act ie the president MUST defer to Congress. The Joint Resolution does the same.

Nope during war time the president has full authority to use any means to preserve the security of the nation congress has given him these powers in the joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001 and the joint resolution of October 16, 2002.

Under no circumstances does the president have the power to declare war. The War Powers Resolution gives the president permission to engage in hostilities per permission from Congress and to continue hostilities only if Congress declares war or authorizes a continuence of hostilities within 60 days of the start of those hostilities. Again we see that the presidential powers are limited. The system of checks and balances should be enough for you to understand this.

The congress has given the president the capability to wage war this should be clear to you if you understood the war powers resolution section 2 subsections C2 AND C3.

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.

War has not been declared and some of the calls were made from U.S. soil.

War has been declared as specified by the War powers resolution of 1973 congress has given the president the war powers in Public Law 107-243
107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq they also gave him war powers in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

 

[Stinger]

Trajan, you're cute when you're defending the Prez. What I heard is that the intelligence community leaked the information to the New York Times. I can't even remember where I heard that--either George Stephanopoulis (which is probably misspelled), Chris Matthews, or Tim Russert.

Sop just like the Plame case, which is a joke compared to this leak, the details of the leak are being passed around in the news community. Seems to me Russert and Matthews need to spend some time in front of a Grand Jury testifying who they heard this from and they better get the times and dates correct. This could turn out to be one of the biggest security scandles this country has seen.

 

[Stinger]

Those who leaked this should be honored, regardless of whether it was illegal or not. They've done us a great service by revealing to us how ****ed up the administration is in terms of invasion of privacy. Sometimes, things like this have to be done for the good of the nation.

Since when does Al qaeda or people who support Al qaeda have a reasonable expectation of privacy? And are you willing to grant such a claim of privacy to Al Qaeda?

 

[Stinger]

Scooter Libby was working for Bush.

Which says alot about your motivations here.

These guys were working for truth.

By these guys you can only mean Libby who was doing just that, exposing the lies of Joe Wilson and his wife. The whole reason Plame's name was brought out was to make sure the people got the true story and not the one Wilson was selling.

Theres a difference.

There is also a difference when we are dealing with those who are at war with us. Do you really think Roosvelt got court permission to eavesdrop on the Nazi's? Do you think the CIA gets search warrants to break into Al qaeda hold outs?