Vote to Censure Bush to be Introduced in Senate

[danarhea]

Senator Russ Feingold has announced, that on Monday, he is going to introduce a measure to censure President Bush for his authorization of illegal wiretapping on American citizens.

Before anyone goes off on a tangent and claims that this is a partisan move, then take note of this: During Clinton's impeachment, Democratic Senators attempted to get the charges dismissed. Feingold was the only Democrat who, against his party's wishes, voted for the impeachment to go ahead.

This clearly is a bipartisan issue. Wiretapping was wrong. You can talk all day about how you feel the law should be changed, but until it is, nobody, not even the President of the United States, is above the law. This is a chance to show the president that Americans do not condone breaking the law.

This is not a bad move. Bush will just get a slap on the wrist, then he and Congress can get back to the work that needs to be done in order to combat terrorism, and we can all then put this issue behind us.

Feingold interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos is here.

 

[Schweddy]

If its a big issue, why wasn't it stopped when it was first started?

In the *Carter* administration.

 

[Gill]

a measure to censure President Bush for his authorization of illegal wiretapping on American citizens.

I didn't realize that a court had ruled the wiretapping illegal.

I must have missed that.

 

[beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c]

I don't think nothing much will result in it; the past two presidents of this Nation have been just terrible--and yet we still have the incompetent many electing the corrupt few. Time for a third party change in all positions. For if something isn't working you don't get the same old idiotic qualifications for the next idiot w/ just a different face.

 

[easyt65]

THIS is the best thing that could happen for the GOP and for Bush! This is also the end of Feingold's run at the Presidency in 2008 before it ever gets started!

You talk about how the wiretapping is wrong.
-- It is an 'executive priveledge/Constitutional right' exercised by almost every President. Carter did, even Clinton. Clinton not only used the wiretapping, he also authorized the entry, search, and seisure of property in Private Citizens' homes without warrants.
-- Immediately after 9-11, Bush asked for the authority to do whatever he had to do to keep this country safe, and the Congress - Dems, too - signed off on it and gave him the authority to do this. Now they don't like it (and it is BUSH we are talking about so they want any excuse to take him down), so they are b!tching! He was given the blessing by Feingold 's buddies!
-- Before Bush started using the wiretaps, he checked it with NUMEROUS lawyers who all gave him the green light. Gonzales has already said there is nothing illegal about it.

All THAT being said, this is gonna look EXTREMELY partisan and 'sour-grapes desire for revenge for Clinton's Impeachment'/Censure! Several of the polls, which Democrats LOVE, so far this morning already show people - VOTERS - not liking this move, seeing it as highly political! While we are still at war, the DEMOCRATS are still going after the President while telling us that the war on terror is a lie and that we are NOT in danger from terrorists/Al Qaeda, much like Clinton was doing while Americans were dying in the Kobar Towers, U.s.S. Cole, and African embassies while he ignored the problem!

It is TOTALLY Partisan! Besides risking shooting himself in the foot with the voters, he has already lost before it gets introduced! The GOP is not going to go for this and the measure will fail. He WILL be branded as being Partisan, and his Presidential bid will be doomed before he even throws his hat in the ring!

The only reason the GOP might go along with this is if they continue their fear mongering. Technically there was nothing wrong with the port deal because we were NOT out-sourcing our security, but, fearing the backlash from the public on this idea, the GOP (coming up for re-election soon) split from the President. Instead of gathering and talking about the facts, most began fanning the flames of fear and spreading the BS that we were handing the reins of our security over to the UAE. I don't think there is that much of a big deal about the UAE taking over the job, since 40% of our Ports are run by foreign countries now, but I also don't have a problem with the U.S. selling the job contracts to whoever they want. I just thought the whole ports deal flak was the GOP up for re-election trying to distance themselves from Bush on an issue they thought Bush would take flak for, especially with the dip in his numbers - again, purely politically motivated.

(I find it funny now that, as manypeople/Senators have called for a U.S. company to buy the UK Co.,there are NO U.S. COMPANIES hwo are willing to/can buy the UK company and provide the service! So, the UAE deal may come back up. The UK company added that they would be willing to sell to a U.S. company but not for a LOSS, citing their right to make money no matter what the U.S. says! It's their freakin' company!)

But don't tell me that poltical partisanship has NOTHING to do with this idea to censure Bush! EVERYTHING almost EVERY politician does these days is politically motivated. And one of the biggest problems the Dems have is not being able to:
1. Listen to the people/voters and actually try to give them what they want. (Instead, when rejected in 2004, the Dem leadership lashed out at them, calling the voters 'Ignorant, In-bred, Redneck bible-thumpers! Way to listen and win back the voters!)
2. Let the sour-grapes, bitter hatred of the Clinton impeachment go! It SEEMS like the whole 1 1/2 terms of Bush that the Dems have been trying to get revenge. Whether or not this is one of those cases or not, it is going to be SEEN that way! (And if I were the GOP, I would launch a PR campaign to make that happen, making the Dems look like a$$e$....and you know it could work, no matter if you are Dem, GOP, Liberterian, etc....!)

 

[Captain America]

My boy Feingold is sure raising a stink these days. I hope he doesn't become the next Howard Dean. He shows so much promise.

 

[KCConservative]

I didn't realize that a court had ruled the wiretapping illegal.

I must have missed that.

See, dana was hoping you wouldn't catch that little piece of untruth. In Danarhea's mind, it's illegal. Don't you know that's all that matters?

 

[Captain America]

See, dana was hoping you wouldn't catch that little piece of untruth. In Danarhea's mind, it's illegal. Don't you know that's all that matters?

And in your mind it was legal. I thought that's was all that mattered. You guys are getting me sooooo confused!

 

[easyt65]

And in your mind it was legal. I thought that's was all that mattered. You guys are getting me sooooo confused!

The only thing thatmatters is what the Justice Department says, and they have already concluded that it was perfectly legal......which makes Feingold evn look MORE like a rabid, partisan, sour grapes MORON! Suggesting the censuring of a President for something that was not illegal and that he had every right to do?!

Judas Priest and eegad! :shock: He used Air force One yesterday, too! That's not illegal, either but let's slap his hand for it! :roll:

 

[danarhea]

The only thing thatmatters is what the Justice Department says, and they have already concluded that it was perfectly legal......which makes Feingold evn look MORE like a rabid, partisan, sour grapes MORON! Suggesting the censuring of a President for something that was not illegal and that he had every right to do?!

Judas Priest and eegad! :shock: He used Air force One yesterday, too! That's not illegal, either but let's slap his hand for it! :roll:

You seem to be confused. The Justice Department is not a court of law, or any other part of the judicial branch of government, but is part of the executive branch of government. They, of course, will attempt to claim that it is legal. However, the executive branch cannot issue rulings as you state. They can only make a legal argument on their own behalf.

From the article:

FEINGOLD: Not at all. You know, we've had a chance here for three months to look at whether there's any legal basis for this -- and they're using shifting legal justifications.


First, they try to argue that, somehow under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, they can do this. It's pretty clear that they can't.


Then there's the argument that somehow the military authorization for Afghanistan allowed this. This has basically been laughed out of the room in the Congress.


So the last resort is to somehow say that the president has inherent authority to ignore the law of the United States of America.

But the bottom line is that nobody, not even the President of the United States is above the law.

So there is no sort of independent, inherent authority that allows the president to override the laws passed by the Congress of the United States.

 

[easyt65]

But the bottom line is that nobody, not even the President of the United States is above the law.

Unless you are a Democrat or either Clinton, and then only 99% of the time. :lol:

 

[danarhea]

Unless you are a Democrat or either Clinton, and then only 99% of the time. :lol:

Actually, I supported Clinton's impeachment. Clinton broke the law, and impeachment was the right thing to do. You are no better than those who supported Clinton during that time.

 

[Captain America]

Unless you are a Democrat or either Clinton, and then only 99% of the time. :lol:

Reminds me of Pee Wee's Playhouse. "I know you are but what am I?":rofl

Although I believe Mr. Bush should be censured, (for MANY things) I do feel it's a waste of time and money. It was a waste of time and money when they went after Clinton as well (which some folk here seem to have conveniently forgotten about:roll: )

Further, Mr. Bush could commit almost any attrocity and the vote to address that attrocity would be split down party lines. (Albeit, to their credit, some Republicans do seem to be opening their eyes here lately.) So what's the point. It won't be long until Mr. Bush and his merry band of followers will out of Washington and then, perhaps, we can begin to clean things up after him.

 

[easyt65]

Actually, I supported Clinton's impeachment. Clinton broke the law, and impeachment was the right thing to do. You are no better than those who supported Clinton during that time.

UNLESS you can come up with a CONVICTION -as happened resulting in Clinton's Impeachment, which requires MORE THAN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, there is ZERO reason to even mention the words 'Bush' and 'Censure' in the same breath! Once again, in America we believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', which I know you, Feingold, and most Democrats believe only applies to Democrats!

As of today, there is no legal decision declaring what Bush did was illegal; therefor, any such recommendation for censure of Bush is based on Feingold's, and YOURS, personal Bias and hatred for the GOP/Bush! You have NO facts, no case, and therefore, only BS Partisan reason for such rhetoric as a 'censure'. Again, the idea of 'censure' for somthing currently LEGAL is moronic!

Furthermore, if you want to go reallyout on a limb with this - if congress/the Dems want to restrict that power from being used by a future President and wants to pass legislation making such actions illegal in the future, they still can't touch Bush on it unless theymake it retroactive. If they go that route in order to go after him, it will STILL look partisan as he!! because if you're going to make it retroactive just to go after Bush, why not make it go back far enough to go after Carter, Clinton....heck, even FDR. How about Washington, who ordered correspondence carried by couriers to be seized and read, or Lincoln who ordered the telegraph wires monitored to listen in on U.S. citizens during the Civil war?! This can quickly be turned into/proven to be yet another partisan witch hunt!

 

[easyt65]

It was a waste of time and money when they went after Clinton as well (which some folk here seem to have conveniently forgotten about:roll: )

Pardon me if I disagree with you on this one, cap, but I also believe that no President is above the law. believe that a President should be Impeached when he commits a felony, when he tries to deny American citizens of their constitutional rights, like the right to a fair trial, witness tampering during a Federal Grand jury Investigation, and more. I also think, of all the crimes Clinton perpetrated, he was prosecuted and Impeached on one of the least important ones! I would have thought treason, selling the Chinese military missile technology that finally has allowed them to reach the U.S. with their nukes - the money going into his campaign chest being traced directly back to the Chinese military, would have been the thing for which he was convicted and Impeached! (Thus my '99% of the time' comment above - must be niced to be protected by a majority liberal media AND majority share of congress. While the GOP holds the congress, the public, liberal media war machine is definitely held by the opposition!)

 

[danarhea]

UNLESS you can come up with a CONVICTION -as happened resulting in Clinton's Impeachment, which requires MORE THAN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, there is ZERO reason to even mention the words 'Bush' and 'Censure' in the same breath! Once again, in America we believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', which I know you, Feingold, and most Democrats believe only applies to Democrats!

As of today, there is no legal decision declaring what Bush did was illegal; therefor, any such recommendation for censure of Bush is based on Feingold's, and YOURS, personal Bias and hatred for the GOP/Bush! You have NO facts, no case, and therefore, only BS Partisan reason for such rhetoric as a 'censure'. Again, the idea of 'censure' for somthing currently LEGAL is moronic!

Furthermore, if you want to go reallyout on a limb with this - if congress/the Dems want to restrict that power from being used by a future President and wants to pass legislation making such actions illegal in the future, they still can't touch Bush on it unless theymake it retroactive. If they go that route in order to go after him, it will STILL look partisan as he!! because if you're going to make it retroactive just to go after Bush, why not make it go back far enough to go after Carter, Clinton....heck, even FDR. How about Washington, who ordered correspondence carried by couriers to be seized and read, or Lincoln who ordered the telegraph wires monitored to listen in on U.S. citizens during the Civil war?! This can quickly be turned into/proven to be yet another partisan witch hunt!

Bush's legal claims, via the Justice Department, are very dubious, and Bush's flip flopping on this issue is going to become legend....

First, Bush attempts to claim that, under FISA, he had the right to wiretap without warrants all along. When legal minds showed that FISA did not allow for that, then Bush changes his mind and attempts to claim that 911 gave him that authority. That didnt fly either, so now Bush is attempting to claim that the Constitution allows the President to ignore laws passed by Congress. That wont fly either.

Bush's most extreme defenders actually concede that he violated the law, but they insist that the president has inherent authority to ignore or break any law that restricts his authority as commander-in-chief under Article II of the Constitution. This is a radical extension of the arguments about unilateral presidential power championed by former Justice Department official John Yoo, a defender of the Bush surveillance program, and David Addington, Dick Cheney's chief of staff. But no court has ever suggested that the widely respected FISA law might be an unconstitutional infringement on the president's constitutional authority, and no president before Bush has had the audacity to press such an absurd claim.

Article is here.

BTW, you might notice that I am providing links to back up what I am saying, but I have yet to see a single link from you. Just because you say something is so does not make it so. I have the facts on my side.

 

[easyt65]

Bush's legal claims, via the Justice Department, are very dubious, and Bush's flip flopping on this issue is going to become legend....

BTW, you might notice that I am providing links to back up what I am saying.......

Lat me say this one more time:

UNLESS you can come up with a CONVICTION -as happened resulting in Clinton's Impeachment, which requires MORE THAN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, there is ZERO reason to even mention the words 'Bush' and 'Censure' in the same breath! Once again, in America we believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', which I know you, Feingold, and most Democrats believe only applies to Democrats!

As of today, there is no legal decision declaring what Bush did was illegal; therefor, any such recommendation for censure of Bush is based on Feingold's, and YOURS, personal Bias and hatred for the GOP/Bush! You have NO facts, no case, and therefore, only BS Partisan reason for such rhetoric as a 'censure'. Again, the idea of 'censure' for somthing currently LEGAL is moronic!

Thank you very much for the links to show me what you have based your opinon on, but until you give me a link to the court case that has declared what Bush did was illegal and has convicted him of breaking the law, it is merely your opinion and the OPINION of the rabid liberal, Bush-bashing Democrats! thanks, and have a nice day!

(I, on the other hand, do NOT have to give you any links to show what Bush has done is legal - that has already been established. The only way it can be refuted is to show where a court has declared what he has done is not legal and thus has convicted him of breaking the law. THAT should be a monumental story and should be easy for you to find and prove, should that have actually happened.....which it has NOT!)

 

[danarhea]

Lat me say this one more time:

UNLESS you can come up with a CONVICTION -as happened resulting in Clinton's Impeachment, which requires MORE THAN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, there is ZERO reason to even mention the words 'Bush' and 'Censure' in the same breath! Once again, in America we believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', which I know you, Feingold, and most Democrats believe only applies to Democrats!

As of today, there is no legal decision declaring what Bush did was illegal; therefor, any such recommendation for censure of Bush is based on Feingold's, and YOURS, personal Bias and hatred for the GOP/Bush! You have NO facts, no case, and therefore, only BS Partisan reason for such rhetoric as a 'censure'. Again, the idea of 'censure' for somthing currently LEGAL is moronic!

Thank you very much for the links to show me what you have based your opinon on, but until you give me a link to the court case that has declared what Bush did was illegal and has convicted him of breaking the law, it is merely your opinion and the OPINION of the rabid liberal, Bush-bashing Democrats! thanks, and have a nice day!

(I, on the other hand, do NOT have to give you any links to show what Bush has done is legal - that has already been established. The only way it can be refuted is to show where a court has declared what he has done is not legal and thus has convicted him of breaking the law. THAT should be a monumental story and should be easy for you to find and prove, should that have actually happened.....which it has NOT!)

Once the judicial decision is rendered, and if it is against Bush, then will you agree that Bush broke the law? To make things fair, I will agree that Bush did not break the law if the judcial decision says he did not.

This will be very easy. You and I both make our commitment to abide by the judicial decision, and let the facts speak for themselves. Deal?

 

[Schweddy]

Once the judicial decision is rendered, and if it is against Bush, then will you agree that Bush broke the law? To make things fair, I will agree that Bush did not break the law if the judcial decision says he did not.

This will be very easy. You and I both make our commitment to abide by the judicial decision, and let the facts speak for themselves. Deal?

Might want to tweak up on your history.
If you really want to let the facts speak for themselves that is.

*every* President has had wiretapping done since Carter.

This will be very easy.

It's already a done deal, so yeah - it's easy.

 

[KCConservative]

And in your mind it was legal. I thought that's was all that mattered. You guys are getting me sooooo confused!

Do you see where I said that anywhere? No, you don't. Although I support the practice, I have never said whether the wiretapping of terror suspects is legal or illegal. Unlike the "hate first" crowd, I'll wait until the determination has been made, by those more qualified than you or dana.

 

[easyt65]

Once the judicial decision is rendered, and if it is against Bush, then will you agree that Bush broke the law? To make things fair, I will agree that Bush did not break the law if the judcial decision says he did not.

This will be very easy. You and I both make our commitment to abide by the judicial decision, and let the facts speak for themselves. Deal?

Once - and that is a BIG assumption - any such judicial decision is rendered, I would be glad to agree with you that Bush broke the law. You would, in turn, also have to agree with me that, in that case, that we would have to claim that other previous Presidents (like Carter and Clinton) are just as guilty. How far back would we go in charging and prosecuting/punishing? But yes, I may not agree with the decision, but I would most certainly agree at that point that he had broken the law, without knowing it as it is currently his and others' understanding that it IS currently legal!

><><><><><><

I would also pose this question to you: According to many, and as there has been no such legal decision, no law currently exists that has been broken.

1. If new legislation is past, can you make it retroactive in order to go after a President?

2. Lets say it goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision on interpretation - can you charge someone with an illegal activity if the law was not clearly defined until THAT INSTANT that the S.C. clarifies/defines what the law really should be regarding this issue?
- I guess you could say that the previous interpretation of law under which any such program had been previously run was wrong, but can you truly say the person/group for running that program is guilty of a crime taking into consideration that the law had not been defines/clarified until after it had been run?
-- In other words, S.C. clarifies/defines the law, turns to bush, and says, "Hey, you guys interpreted that law incorrectly, and you really can't do what youhave been doing." Does he immediately stop the wire-tapping program and that is that because up until that point the law was not clearly defined? OR, do you kinda, again, make the decision retroactive and can then go after the President, who was running the wire-tapping program before the law was clearly defined and before the legal decision was made that the program was illegal?

 

[danarhea]

Once - and that is a BIG assumption - any such judicial decision is rendered, I would be glad to agree with you that Bush broke the law. You would, in turn, also have to agree with me that, in that case, that we would have to claim that other previous Presidents (like Carter and Clinton) are just as guilty. How far back would we go in charging and prosecuting/punishing? But yes, I may not agree with the decision, but I would most certainly agree at that point that he had broken the law, without knowing it as it is currently his and others' understanding that it IS currently legal!

><><><><><><

I would also pose this question to you: According to many, and as there has been no such legal decision, no law currently exists that has been broken.

1. If new legislation is past, can you make it retroactive in order to go after a President?

2. Lets say it goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision on interpretation - can you charge someone with an illegal activity if the law was not clearly defined until THAT INSTANT that the S.C. clarifies/defines what the law really should be regarding this issue?
- I guess you could say that the previous interpretation of law under which any such program had been previously run was wrong, but can you truly say the person/group for running that program is guilty of a crime taking into consideration that the law had not been defines/clarified until after it had been run?
-- In other words, S.C. clarifies/defines the law, turns to bush, and says, "Hey, you guys interpreted that law incorrectly, and you really can't do what youhave been doing." Does he immediately stop the wire-tapping program and that is that because up until that point the law was not clearly defined? OR, do you kinda, again, make the decision retroactive and can then go after the President, who was running the wire-tapping program before the law was clearly defined and before the legal decision was made that the program was illegal?

If you are talking about ex post facto laws, then you have it bass ackwards. If the Supreme court decides that existing laws were broken, then the law is not ex post facto. And the FISA law IS clearly defined. And yes, you can go after ANY president before Bush who did the same thing, as long as the law passed by Congress was in existence at that time.

Also, when you talk about the law being defined, it has no basis whatsoever in fact. When Congress passed the FISA law, they made it clear what the conditions were, and the fact that it was a felony to violate those conditions. Your attempt at creating "redefinition" is Clintonesque to the nth degree.

 

[easyt65]

Your attempt at creating "redefinition" is Clintonesque to the nth degree.

Not attempting to do so, I assure you. I have not read FISA - have better things to do, actually. I guess the meat of the legal debate is in Bush's claim that when congress gave him a 'blank check' to protect America after 9-11, this is, in part where HE got HIS authority to run his wire-tapping program.

If THAT is the case, then what is Carter and Clinton's reasoning of their own use of such programs in their past administrations? I don't recall Congress giving them any such authority. Honest question, not trying to switch the focus back on past Presidents. (Simply would like to know their justification - REALLY.)

Although I have no problem with wire-tapping suspected terrorists or anyone suspected of having such dealings, I understand the RISK of such valid arguments/reasons being broken/bent and thus the program being used for reasons other than simply protecting this country from terrorists. In the end, if, as I said, a legal decision is made saying Bush brioke the law, then I will be right on the bandwagon with those calling for his censure/punishment.

I would rather not 'take down' a President during a time of war for running a Secret program designed to hunt down terrorists, though. I would not agree to Impeachment for such a 'crime' during war time but would rather see the program immediately halted, as per the law, and a Censure (Mush like our/the military's 'Letter of Reprimand', from what I understand) handed down.

BTW, so how is that investigation to see who leaked this secret program going? :roll:

 

[aquapub]

This clearly is a bipartisan issue. Wiretapping was wrong...This is a chance to show the president that Americans do not condone breaking the law.

Perhaps to Michael Moore and Move On this is "clearly a bipartisan issue." But the "outrage" over listening to the phone calls of foreign terror suspects is not representative of the mainstream. It is a fringe view.

And it is highly debatable that any law was broken-especially after one of the drafters of the law liberals are alleging was broken came on the news and acknowledged that the law allows for exceptions to be made if there are any "extraordinary circumstances pertinent to national security." 9/11 was extraordinary enough for middle America.

The FISA court was not adequate. And please don't compare Bush to Clinton if it is at all avoidable. Bush-according to the left-broke the law to protect the country, Clinton did it to hide personal misconduct.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

But the "outrage" over listening to the phone calls of foreign terror suspects is not representative of the mainstream. It is a fringe view.

I agree. AFAICT, the real outrage is about listening in on Americans w/o a warrant.
Everyone who's upset about listening to terrorists must be a fringe.
Folks upset about the govt's warrantless wiretapping of Americans are almost entirely very reasonable patriots.