OMG, how the republicans change their argument depending on who is president! (1 Viewer)

[aps]

This is just too funny! Please read the following article posted on the “FreeRepublic.com ‘"A Conservative News Forum.’"

Please, please some republican, tell us how you could be in such an uproar when Clinton used FISA but when Bush neglects to use it, how that seems to be okay.

The article is entitled, “The Secret FISA Court: Rubber Stamping Our Rights.”

Seven judges on a secret court have authorized all but one of over 7,500 requests to spy in the name of National Security. They meet in secret, with no published orders, opinions, or public record. Those spied on May never know of the intrusion. Now, Clinton has expanded the powers to include not only electronic, but physical searches.

The aftershock of the Oklahoma City bombing sent Congress scurrying to trade off civil liberties for an illusion of public safety. A good ten weeks before that terrible attack, however with a barely noticed pen stroke President Bill Clinton virtually killed off the Fourth Amendment when he approved a law to expand the already extraordinary powers of the strangest creation in the history of the federal judiciary.

Since its founding in 1978, a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA rhymes with ice -a) has received 7,539 applications to authorize electronic surveillance within the U.S. In the name of national security, the court has approved all but one of these requests from the Justice Department on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. Each of these decisions was reached in secret, with no published orders, opinions, or public record. The people, organizations, or embassies spied on were not notified of either the hearing or the surveillance itself. The American Civil Liberties Union was not able to unearth a single instance in which the target of a FISA wiretap was allowed to review the initial application. Nor would the targets be offered any opportunity to see transcripts of the conversations taped by the government and explain their side of the story.

Without access to such materials, said Kate Martin of the ACLU, targets of FISA searches are denied any meaningful opportunity to contest the basis for the execution of the FISA search.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a27337612f5.htm

Interesting. So when the ACLU supports your cause, you quote them. But when they don’t support your cause, you dismiss them for being a left-wing establishment. It is just amazing to me to see how the republicans could be so against surveillance in the name of national security when Clinton was president, but be all for warrantless surveillance as soon as the president is a republican.

You all have to read this article. Here are some important quotes from it.

The targets need not be under suspicion of committing a crime, but may be investigated when probable cause results solely from their associations or status: for example, belonging to, or aiding and abetting organizations deemed to pose a threat to U.S. national security.

Of course, since no information about the actions of the court is permitted to escape the sealed FISA chambers, the public is expected to accept on blind faith that the minimization procedures are functioning properly and the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies are not overstepping their bounds. But given an extensive and well-documented pattern of past government abuses, Turley's warning of future abuses seems safe. Even when warrantless searches were unambiguously illegal, the government conducted thousands of them and violated the civil rights not only of possible spies, but of people engaged in constitutionally protected dissent. Secret searches of Americans' homes and papers in the name of national security were one of the worst civil liberties abuses of the Cold War, noted the ACLU's Martin. Instead of approving them, the Congress should outlaw them.

Oh really? LOL

With the FISA court now able to authorize physical searches as well as electronic surveillance simply by citing national security concerns the elite legal circle is nearly complete. The act is a triumph for our constitutional system of checks and balances, former Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh explained in the twilight of the Cold War. It establishes that the authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance in this country will be shared by all three branches of government.

But only if the president is a democrat does the system of checks and balances come into play.

 

[aps]

Interesting. This has been up for 3 hours and I have yet to hear from a republican on what they think of the article.

 

[aquapub]

1 Please, please some republican, tell us how you could be in such an uproar when Clinton used FISA but when Bush neglects to use it, how that seems to be okay.


2 So when the ACLU supports your cause, you quote them. But when they don’t support your cause, you dismiss them for being a left-wing establishment.

1 In all this oblivious, cocky posturing, what you have failed to grasp is that the reason Bill Clinton was such an abysmal failure at protecting this country is that he used such impotent approaches as the FISA court. Bill Clinton treated enemies as if they were mere criminals. THAT is the primary shortcoming in the liberal approach to national security, and the fact that so many liberals-like you-are still advocating such shortsighted policies (and even scorning those who dare to be more effective) demonstrates that Democrats ARE in fact still living in a pre-9/11 mindset, just as Karl Rove keeps saying.

The fact that somebody as ineffective as Clinton used the FISA court should stand as a testament to what an inadequate means of fighting terror it is.


2 The ACLU, in the example you have just provided, has taken a liberal position, as they do 100% of the time. The only difference here is that this particular far left position of theirs helps Republicans demonstrate what hypocrites their opponents are for crucifying Bush about the eavesdropping.

 

[RightinNYC]

no time to look at the article, but lollers at using OMG in the title post.:lol:

 

[aps]

1 In all this oblivious, cocky posturing, what you have failed to grasp is that the reason Bill Clinton was such an abysmal failure at protecting this country is that he used such impotent approaches as the FISA court. Bill Clinton treated enemies as if they were mere criminals. THAT is the primary shortcoming in the liberal approach to national security, and the fact that so many liberals-like you-are still advocating such shortsighted policies (and even scorning those who dare to be more effective) demonstrates that Democrats ARE in fact still living in a pre-9/11 mindset, just as Karl Rove keeps saying.

The fact that somebody as ineffective as Clinton used the FISA court should stand as a testament to what an inadequate means of fighting terror it is.


2 The ACLU, in the example you have just provided, has taken a liberal position, as they do 100% of the time. The only difference here is that this particular far left position of theirs helps Republicans demonstrate what hypocrites their opponents are for crucifying Bush about the eavesdropping.

LOL I notice that you fail to address the arguments made in the article by republicans, which seem to be the very arguments used by the Democrats now, which arguments the dismissed by republicans. Care to comment on that substantive issue, as opposed to insulting Clinton and the democrats?

 

[aquapub]

LOL I notice that you fail to address the arguments made in the article by republicans, which seem to be the very arguments used by the Democrats now, which arguments the dismissed by republicans. Care to comment on that substantive issue, as opposed to insulting Clinton and the democrats?

Oh please. :roll:

Republicans had a reason to worry about Bill Clinton increasing his power. He abused the hell out of his power the whole time he was in office (like having his IRS audit Gennifer Flowers-someone who was well beneath the income level the IRS ever takes interest in-in the middle of her testimony against him), whereas NOT ONE SINGLE allegation of this sort or anything close to it has surfaced against Bush. NOT ONE.

Nice try. Keep posturing. Dig that hole deeper. :lol:

Gotta go. You kids have fun now.

 

[imprtnrd]

So they are ALL crooked and twisted politicans what else is new? :doh

 

[aps]

So they are ALL crooked and twisted politicans what else is new? :doh

According to aquapub, only the democrats are crooked. It must be fun to wear rose-colored glasses all the time. aquapub, will you loan me yours? Maybe then you can get a reality check.

 

[oldreliable67]

aps,

You might want to check your basic assertion: is the article quoted actually from a conservative source? The source you cited is actually a secondary source; the article actually originated at Rense.com, hardly a conservative source, although some of the stuff there might be called ultra-ultra- conservative.

Just to give you a flavor, do you remember the poster Canuck? Stuff from Rense was a favorite with him, mostly anything that was in any way, shape, form or fashion, US-bashing. Though a lot of Rense stuff in recent years is Bush-bashing, it appears that that is just because that is who happens to be in office at the time.

Haven't finished reading your thread-starter yet - got sidetracked with your Rense-sourced article, but will do so after I try to squeeze in some work!

 

[aps]

aps,

You might want to check your basic assertion: is the article quoted actually from a conservative source? The source you cited is actually a secondary source; the article actually originated at Rense.com, hardly a conservative source, although some of the stuff there might be called ultra-ultra- conservative.

Just to give you a flavor, do you remember the poster Canuck? Stuff from Rense was a favorite with him, mostly anything that was in any way, shape, form or fashion, US-bashing. Though a lot of Rense stuff in recent years is Bush-bashing, it appears that that is just because that is who happens to be in office at the time.

Haven't finished reading your thread-starter yet - got sidetracked with your Rense-sourced article, but will do so after I try to squeeze in some work!

Oh well then don't forget to read all the posts under the article. That might tell you whether members of the "FreeRepublic" espouse what the article states.

 

[easyt65]

Please, please some republican, tell us how you could be in such an uproar when Clinton used FISA but when Bush neglects to use it, how that seems to be okay.

Hey aps, please, please, PLEASE tell me how Bush's use of wire taps the way he idid is SUCH a major/criminal act today when the news is out the last 2 days that not only did Clinton use the exact SAME wire tap procedures during his administration but so did Jimmy Carter?

Clinton not only ordered wire taps on Americans in this country, and it should be noted that he did so in a time of PEACE not war, but he also ordered/authorized the entry into, search of, and seisure of personal property without ever filing any type warrant.

Jimmy carter has weighed in, especially during Ms. King's recent ceremony, on the Bush wiretaps. problem is he forgot to mention is was a Democratic President who ordered the wire tapping of the King's phones. He also neglected to inform the public that he had also ordered wire tapping of phones without warrants during HIS administration! He is reportedly displeased about this being reported. well, I guess so! I would be a little embarrassed if the news reported MY hypocrisy as well!

So, aps, please, oh please tell me why this program under Bush is so heinous and UN-Constitutional but yet it was so acceptable and considered Constitutional when used by Clinton and Carter!

 

[oldreliable67]

aps,

So I'm a bit confused about your point. You're stating that Repubs complained about the FISA court while Clinton was Pres., but now embrace it? Is that it? If so, I don't quite see that from the article or the comments on the article that you suggested that I read. The 'FR' comments that I read were virtually universally critical of the FISA court, regardless of administration (and I read them up through 2001): they were just as critical during the Clinton terms as they were/have been under Bush terms.

On balance, my impression of the article in its entirety is a description by ultra-conservatives (they are so far right, they almost come full circle and meet the far left coming 'round the bend) bashing a program that to them, is roughly equivalent in its stridency, to NRA supporters protesting any infringement on the right to bear arms, no matter who happens to be in office at the time.

So, please elaborate a bit more on why you think this is the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[cnredd]

Please, please some republican, tell us how you could be in such an uproar when Clinton used FISA but when Bush neglects to use it, how that seems to be okay.

The article is entitled, “The Secret FISA Court: Rubber Stamping Our Rights.”

But only if the president is a democrat does the system of checks and balances come into play.

Nice stereotyping...May I throw out something I wrote previously?...Why thank you...you're too kind...

Does anyone remember Aldrich Ames?

Reportedly, the Clinton administration had not always been enthusiastic about expanding the court's powers. Like its predecessors, it operated under the assumption that the executive already had inherent authority to exempt itself from Fourth Amendment constraints and could order warrantless searches to protect national security. Nonetheless, the government avoided allowing this inherent authority to be tested in the courts.

Then along came Aldrich Ames. The spy case proved a convenient vehicle on which to hitch expansion of state power. It also offered a glimpse at the state-of-the-art domestic counterintelligence techniques that might well be turned on an activist group near you. Following months of electronic and physical surveillance which included a break-in of Ames' car and searches through his office and family trash FBI agents were finally turned loose in the early morning hours of October 9, 1993. They didn't `pick' locks like in the movies; they made their own keys. Among other agents in the FBI, the consensus was unanimous: The tech agents were geniuses.

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.

Other civil liberties lawyers agree with this evaluation, and the Justice Department itself was concerned enough about the question to refer to this problem when it negotiated a deal with Ames in order to avoid trial. While Ames was sentenced to life in prison, his wife Rosario received five years. We didn't get to the point of litigation, I regret to say, said Ames' lawyer Plato Cacheris. The problem was that Ames very much wanted to see that his wife was treated a little more softly than he was being treated.

Now eager to put a stamp of judicial impartiality on the hazy executive branch doctrine of inherent authority, the Justice Department immediately got behind the bill to expand the FISA court's power. Soon after Ames pleaded guilty last year to spying, administration officials began arguing that adherence to traditional Fourth Amendment protections for American citizens would unduly frustrate counterintelligence efforts against spies operating in the U.S.

Physical searches to gather foreign intelligence depend on secrecy, argued Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. If the existence of these searches were known to the foreign power targets, they would alter their activities to render the information useless. Gorelick went on to explain that A [traditional] search can only be made when there's probable cause to believe a crime is involved, whereas a national-security search can be made at a substantially earlier stage. We often don't know what we're looking for when we go in, she observed.

http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq53.court.html

This is, by no means, an attack on Clinton...

When it comes to stuff like this, I totally agreed with it then as I do now...

Now please explain this "uproar" that I, being a Republican, MUST be showing...:roll:

pppfffffttttt!....

 

[easyt65]

The most important part of that entire piece up there was that someone thought that such actions was unconstitutional, that several scholars agreed, but no where does it say that they were deemed UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!

The Aldrich Ames search in my view was obviously and egregiously unconstitutional. Other civil liberties lawyers agree with this evaluation, and the Justice Department itself was concerned enough about the question to refer to this problem when it negotiated a deal with Ames in order to avoid trial. While Ames was sentenced to life in prison, his wife Rosario received five years. We didn't get to the point of litigation, I regret to say, said Ames' lawyer Plato Cacheris.

THEREFORE, prescedence has been set - the program has been used by numerous previous Presidents, as those Presidents claimed the right to do so according to the Constitution, including 1 Bill Clinton and 1 Jimmy Carter who both used the program while making this argument. Interesting now how they claim just the opposite when it benefits them and their politically biased attacks against Bush. Gonzales has reviewed thre program and has deemed it totally legal as well, validating not only Bush's use of the program but clinton and Carter's as well. It is NOT un-constitutional! Therefore, all the ruckus about this is garbage. Want to get it stopped, then take the argument before the supreme court, until then Carter and Clinton can keep calling for Bush's head because he is "breaking the law just like WE did!" But that is a bogus argment, as the Dems very well know it. The only thing they have and will continue to successfully do in this case is continue to weaken our ability to wage war on the terrorists who seek to destroy this country.

BTW, I have YET to see as rabid a call for the head of whoever leaked THIS SECRET PROGRAM as I have see the call for Bush's...or even for whoever leaked the name of the CIA desk-jockey, Vallerie Plame!

Can we PLEASE cut the BS political ambushes and focus on REAL matters that are more important! If Clinton and the Democrats would have spent half as much energy during his 2 terms going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as they have the last 5 years going after Bush, Bin Laden would be in Jail, the families of the Kobar Tower and U.S.S. Cole bombings would have had justice by now, 9-11 might not have happened, and there might not have been a need to go into Afghanistan or Iraq!

Al Qaeda was too tough to go after, though, so they pick the President of the United States and our troops in a time of war! Brilliant! The Dems didn't do anything to help in the War on Terror but they did blab about/reveal a secret program designed to fight the terrorists! All THAT should make a WONDERFUL 2008 campaign poster!

 

[aps]

Guys, I will respond soon. I promise. And pffffffft to you too, cnredd.

 

[aquapub]

According to aquapub, only the democrats are crooked. It must be fun to wear rose-colored glasses all the time. aquapub, will you loan me yours? Maybe then you can get a reality check.

Once again, I see you avoid the subject and make irrelevant smears. Very telling.

Either refute my points or stop posturing. I do not assert that only Democrats are corrupt. But I won't let liberals so hypocritically smear Republicans without correcting them either.

 

[aps]

Hey aps, please, please, PLEASE tell me how Bush's use of wire taps the way he idid is SUCH a major/criminal act today when the news is out the last 2 days that not only did Clinton use the exact SAME wire tap procedures during his administration but so did Jimmy Carter?

Clinton not only ordered wire taps on Americans in this country, and it should be noted that he did so in a time of PEACE not war, but he also ordered/authorized the entry into, search of, and seisure of personal property without ever filing any type warrant.

Clinton did not use the same wiretap procedures. Based on my reading of this article, this author was up in arms about how much Clinton had used FISA, which is a federal statute and which statute Clinton was abiding by. FISA addressed surveillance only--it made no mention of physical searches. There was no law addressing what Clinton did in that circumstance, so he sought to amend FISA to include that circumstance. This way, he had Congress on his side if he did that in the future. This president thinks that since he and his attorneys have determined that he has inherent authority to do what he is doing, he doesn't need to have Congress on his side.

What's interesting is that he says he is here to protect us from any act of terrorism. When Gonzales was asked at the hearings why they weren't conducting warrantless surveillance within the United States, Gonzales said that while Bush had the inherent power to do such, they suspected that the fallout from discovering domestic warrantless surveillance would be worse than what they are currently undergoing. Gonzales was asked that if 2 al Qaeda members are talking to each other in the United States that we won't conduct warrantless surveillance. He said no. Huh? Bush says it is his duty to protect us from further terrorist attacks and that he has the inherent power to conduct domestic surveillance but because of the uproar it would cause, he won't do it? That doesn't even make sense.

Jimmy carter has weighed in, especially during Ms. King's recent ceremony, on the Bush wiretaps. problem is he forgot to mention is was a Democratic President who ordered the wire tapping of the King's phones. He also neglected to inform the public that he had also ordered wire tapping of phones without warrants during HIS administration! He is reportedly displeased about this being reported. well, I guess so! I would be a little embarrassed if the news reported MY hypocrisy as well!

I think any president, no matter which party he is a member of, should condemn the breaking of the law. Are you saying that because Carter is a democrat, he should overlook that a fellow democrat broke the law? What kind of morals do you have? And please provide me evidence that Carter ordered warrantless surveillance. Otherwise, don't assert that fact (because I know it is not true).

So, aps, please, oh please tell me why this program under Bush is so heinous and UN-Constitutional but yet it was so acceptable and considered Constitutional when used by Clinton and Carter!

See answers above.

 

[aps]

aps,

So I'm a bit confused about your point. You're stating that Repubs complained about the FISA court while Clinton was Pres., but now embrace it? Is that it? If so, I don't quite see that from the article or the comments on the article that you suggested that I read. The 'FR' comments that I read were virtually universally critical of the FISA court, regardless of administration (and I read them up through 2001): they were just as critical during the Clinton terms as they were/have been under Bush terms.

On balance, my impression of the article in its entirety is a description by ultra-conservatives (they are so far right, they almost come full circle and meet the far left coming 'round the bend) bashing a program that to them, is roughly equivalent in its stridency, to NRA supporters protesting any infringement on the right to bear arms, no matter who happens to be in office at the time.

So, please elaborate a bit more on why you think this is the pot calling the kettle black?

Based upon my reading of the article, the author was up in arms about Clinton using the FISA court and the secrecy involved in it. He talks about how the public is to "accept on blind faith that the minimization procedures [of FISA] are functioning properly and the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies are not overstepping their bounds." I have YET to see any of the republicans or conservatives on this message board express any worry about trusting that this administration is not overstepping its bounds. So here is this author complaining about worrying that Clinton is overstepping his bounds, but NOW the republicans/cons are not worried about Bush overstepping his bounds. To me, it is the pot calling the kettle black.

There are more examples from that article. My interpretation was that the complaints in this article are the same complaints made by the democrats now and it's interesting for me to see how practically no one on this message board seems to have any concerns about his program. At least Clinton was following FISA. This president is above FISA, so he thinks.

 

[aps]

Nice stereotyping...May I throw out something I wrote previously?...Why thank you...you're too kind...



Now please explain this "uproar" that I, being a Republican, MUST be showing...:roll:

pppfffffttttt!....

Well then let me commend you for not being partisan on this issue. :lol:

 

[tecoyah]

The Bush supporters have nothing to complain about.....as he doesnt use the court Anyway.....heh

 

[cnredd]

The Bush supporters have nothing to complain about.....as he doesnt use the court Anyway.....heh

Nice...

"Mr. President...you have to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court."

"The Supreme What?"...

"The Supreme COURT, sir."

"OK...Get me the list, a blindfold, and the donkeytail pin again."...

:2wave:

 

[aps]

Nice...

"Mr. President...you have to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court."

"The Supreme What?"...

"The Supreme COURT, sir."

"OK...Get me the list, a blindfold, and the donkeytail pin again."...

:2wave:

I believe tecoyah was talking about the FISA court.

 

[cnredd]

I believe tecoyah was talking about the FISA court.

Yeah...Sorry for making a joke about a DIFFERENT court...stupid me...

I take shots directly AT Bush and I still get crap from the Left...:roll:

 

[aps]

Yeah...Sorry for making a joke about a DIFFERENT court...stupid me...

I take shots directly AT Bush and I still get crap from the Left...:roll:

That post above was your taking a shot at Bush? I must have missed that point. :lol:

 

[cnredd]

That post above was your taking a shot at Bush? I must have missed that point. :lol:

You don't see a shot at Bush in this?...

Mr. President...you have to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court."

"The Supreme What?"...

"The Supreme COURT, sir."

"OK...Get me the list, a blindfold, and the donkeytail pin again."...