Lefty
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Philadelphia
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Yes it IS possible...Are you thinking that if the NEW York Times asked for that information or if the leaker gave them that information, they wouldn't report it?!?!...It would be in their best interests!!!...Lefty said:Actually... I don't believe I ever said that. I said it's not possible to know if the leaker did seek other sources of help before going to the NYT.
And besides, your missing the point that the leaker informed us about an illegal program. See previous post for discussion on classified nature of program.
cnredd said:Farcical...
Senator Rockefeller has already said publicly that he knew of the program in 2003...It has already been made public that the President has discussed this with Senators from both sides of the aisle on a dozen occasions...
If they didn't agree with it, they could've opened their yap at any time...But they didn't...In fact, Rockefeller himself publicly told of a letter he wrote to Cheney questioning the program, but conveinently left it in his desk until the story went public...:roll:
Now how can you trust a Senator that says "I had problems with it, but I kept my mouth shut"?...The answer?...You don't...If it was truely illegal, he would've gone public in two seconds...
If for some unforeseeable reason something does become of this, expect ALL participants(Yes, even the Democratic leadership) to crumble just as quick...
cnredd said:Farcical...
Senator Rockefeller has already said publicly that he knew of the program in 2003...It has already been made public that the President has discussed this with Senators from both sides of the aisle on a dozen occasions...
If they didn't agree with it, they could've opened their yap at any time...But they didn't...In fact, Rockefeller himself publicly told of a letter he wrote to Cheney questioning the program, but conveinently left it in his desk until the story went public...:roll:
Now how can you trust a Senator that says "I had problems with it, but I kept my mouth shut"?...The answer?...You don't...If it was truely illegal, he would've gone public in two seconds...
If for some unforeseeable reason something does become of this, expect ALL participants(Yes, even the Democratic leadership) to crumble just as quick...
So there are no other "checks and balances" when it comes to the Executive Branch other than the press...Lefty said:If I had information about illegal activities perpetrated by the exectutive branch of government... why the hell would I go to the executive branch of government to report such activities? It doesn't make any sense! It doesn't matter if they have programs for people to go to to report this stuff
But here's the problem...aps said:Had he gone public with the information, he would have violated the federal law regarding leaking classified information. It would be one thing if the information was undeniably illegal, but when it's questionably illegal, you keep your mouth shut.
Here's the relevant statute:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=793
Wowwee!!!...Lefty said:How can a Senators be expected to pull the plug on a program like this. Due to it's classified nature you couldn't talk to anyone about it. I'm not sure I blame any of them for not going public with this information. If they had done it, it would be seen as a wild political move and wouldn't be taken seriously by half the people in this country. The president is supposed to consult with members of Congress before taking wild actions like this one, but he did not. That is a cause for concern. And saying he met with Democrats and Republicans dozens of times is just repeating the president's talking points. We know now that the number and frequency of meetings was overexaggerated. The fact is that this program is illegal, and trying to sit here and blame senators and members of congress isn't going to work. We'll see who the real culprits are come 2006.
cnredd said:But here's the problem...
Many here and in public are NOT saying it was "questionably illegal"...They are saying it WAS "undeniably illegal"...
If that were truly the case, anyone who knew about the program could've blown the whistle posthaste...
If GWB went up to Kerry and said "I wiretapped your whole campaign, but it's classified, so you can't go public with it", how long do you think it would take Kerry to hold a news conference on it?...4 seconds?...maybe 3?...
Rockefeller sat on a two-year old letter...Are you telling me that he didn't have TWO YEARS to find out if what was being done was illegal?!?!?...Christ!...People are making that accusation after one newspaper article, but a Senator can't do it in two freakin' years?!?!?!?
oldreliable67 said:(BTW, your usage of "moot" and "point" together ("moot point") are misused. It should be "of the program is moot." or perhaps, "a moot point". Maybe you just left out the 'a'.)
oldreliable67 said:(BTW, your usage of "moot" and "point" together ("moot point") are misused. It should be "of the program is moot." or perhaps, "a moot point". Maybe you just left out the 'a'.)
The determinations about the legality or illegality of the warrantless wiretapping should NOT be debatable to a Senator after two years of knowing about the program...aps said:The determinations about the legality or illegality of the warrantless wiretapping is debatable. Sure you think it was legal and I don't. But who's to say whose opinion is more correct? When an issue is debatable, it means that there is more than one interpretation. In circumstances like that, you keep classified information classified. Just based upon the use of his words (I believe he said he was very concerned or something to that effect), his mindset was one of unsureness as to the legality of these actions.
aps said:Come on, oldreliable, it is obvious that Lefty forgot to use an "a" before those two words. Alright there, Mr. Perfect Grammar/Spelling?
cnredd said:The determinations about the legality or illegality of the warrantless wiretapping should NOT be debatable to a Senator after two years of knowing about the program...
Everything you've stated is true, but I don't see how that ties into this situation...aps said:cnredd, there are very few issues that are not debatable. Something that is not debatable is clear and unmistakable. If you notice, even criminal law doesn't require you to find a defendant clearly and unmistakably guilty. There's a reason for that, you know--that standard is almost impossible to meet.
Regardless, we can agree to disagree on this topic.
cnredd said:Everything you've stated is true, but I don't see how that ties into this situation...
The debate of abortion rolls on, but the one clear fact is still a fact...currently, it's legal...You cannot arrest somebody for having one...
The debate, whether or not an investigation concludes positively or negatively, will go on here, too...
But the one clear fact of legality has NOT been proven one way or the other...The assumption of "innocent until proven guilty" is afforded to everyone that stands before a court, but not to the head of the country?
How thoughtful of you...
oldreliable67 said:Yeah, you're right. Sorry, Lefty, just couldn't resist.
Hey, and while we're here...
The best of everything in 2006 for all DP'ers! Its been fun in 2005, more to come in 2006!!!
While YOU may be backling off the "Bush is undeniably guilty" stance, I'll just point out that there are those that disagree with you wholeheartedly...aps said:Why thank you! I appreciate the compliment. :2wave:
I would not say that Bush is undebatably guilty in this circumstance, BTW.
Lefty said:By the way... real quick, how is it that we are making Congress out to be the guilty party here? You're distracting us from the real issue, which is the illegal actions undertaken by the president. Say what you will about whatever senator you want, but the fact of the matter is that the president is the one that ordered the warrentless wiretappings. We can sit here and debate why so-and-so didn't do this or that, but it's getting us nowhere, and it's not the real issue here. This is a serious breach of constitutional law, and we must look at the real issue here without being distracted by all the noise surrounding it.
Didn't I just say that?!?!...:2wave:oldreliable67 said:Around the fringes of the argument, we find yet a third group: those who seek to gain partisan advantage by siding with one or the other viewpoints. The declamations of opinions and assertions as facts are prevalent in this group. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to apply with these folks. Quick to form an opinion based on political persuasion rather than facts, here we find rhetoric instead of investigation, 'slam at all cost' instead of knowledge-seeking and 'don't bother me with facts, he is a Repub' instead of pragmatism.
All in all, its business as usual.
cnredd said:But the one clear fact of legality has NOT been proven one way or the other...The assumption of "innocent until proven guilty" is afforded to everyone that stands before a court, but not to the head of the country?
:rofloldreliable67 said:Yeah, but I didn't see yours until after I hit the "Submit" button!
Or to paraphrase teacher, "I said it in more words. I win."
oldreliable67 said:Lefty: "we must look at the real issue here without being distracted by all the noise surrounding it."
Absolutely right. And the real issue is, as aps says...
aps: "The determinations about the legality or illegality of the warrantless wiretapping is debatable. Sure you think it was legal and I don't. But who's to say whose opinion is more correct? When an issue is debatable, it means that there is more than one interpretation."
Absolutely right.
The AG has set out the admin's legal foundation for the NSA surveillance program in question. This legal foundation refers to several precedents and cites the authorization to use force as well as the Constitution. Clearly, the admin believes itself to be on solid legal ground.
Nonetheless, there are those who disagree. Here we find those who disagree with the validity of the precedents and the interpretation of the authorization to use force. They also believe that the Constitution is being misinterpreted.
Around the fringes of the argument, we find yet a third group: those who seek to gain partisan advantage by siding with one or the other viewpoints. The declamations of opinions and assertions as facts are prevalent in this group. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to apply with these folks. Quick to form an opinion based on political persuasion rather than facts, here we find rhetoric instead of investigation, 'slam at all cost' instead of knowledge-seeking and 'don't bother me with facts, he is a Repub' instead of pragmatism.
All in all, its business as usual.
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?