- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I didn't realize that a court had ruled the wiretapping illegal.a measure to censure President Bush for his authorization of illegal wiretapping on American citizens.
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?Gill said:I didn't realize that a court had ruled the wiretapping illegal.
I must have missed that.
KCConservative said: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 said:And in your mind it was legal. I thought that's was all that mattered. You guys are getting me sooooo confused!
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.easyt65 said: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:
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.
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.
danarhea said:But the bottom line is that nobody, not even the President of the United States is above the law.
easyt65 said:Unless you are a Democrat or either Clinton, and then only 99% of the time. :lol:
easyt65 said:Unless you are a Democrat or either Clinton, and then only 99% of the time. :lol:
danarhea said: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 said: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: )
easyt65 said: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 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.
danarhea said: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.......
easyt65 said: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!)
Might want to tweak up on your history.danarhea said: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?
It's already a done deal, so yeah - it's easy.This will be very easy.
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.Captain America said:And in your mind it was legal. I thought that's was all that mattered. You guys are getting me sooooo confused!
danarhea said: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?
easyt65 said: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 said:Your attempt at creating "redefinition" is Clintonesque to the nth degree.
danarhea said: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.
I agree. AFAICT, the real outrage is about listening in on Americans w/o a warrant.aquapub said:But the "outrage" over listening to the phone calls of foreign terror suspects is not representative of the mainstream. It is a fringe view.
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?