|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
M E M, that argument has already been disproven.
WBAM and G-man have both pointed out that the warrants were overly cumbersome and difficult to acquire quickly enough, without needlessly overwhelming the court with warrants, and revealing the surveilance to the terrorists, and causing them not to use phones where they can be overheard.
As is the case now, that the tapping of phone calls to Muslims overseas has been leaked by the media.
In the age of cel phones, and again as WBAM and G-man have pointed out abundantly, in a time of war, our government should have the authorization to do what is necessary to acquire intelligence and prevent terrorism, to save the lives of U.S.soldiers and civilians.
If Kerry or some other liberal schmuck were in the White House and complied with every principled technicality you itemize, we might have completely upheld the the rights of muslim immigrants and illegals in the U.S., but at the cost of American lives.
This once again underscores how liberals bury us in abstractions of pseudo-principled idealism that defies the common sense of fighting a war !
I think you guys would rather die than win a war on terrorism.
Or at the very least, smear and falsely mislead the public into opposing a Republican president, to obstruct his ability to effectively fight that war.
It's transparent spite directed at republicans because:
1) you don't hold Carter or Clinton to the same standard that you hold Republican presidents to.
2) the timing of this wiretap story's release was the same day as the very successful Iraq election, and calculated by House, Senate and media liberals to obscure and blunt the coverage of Bush's success there. ( A story the media has been sitting on for a year.)
3) there is a Constitutional legal precedent for the President to do what he's doing, and you absolutely refuse to acknowledge it.
4) the nation is fighting a war. Far greater infringement on civil liberties has occurred in just about every prior U.S. war.
But you and other liberals argue technicalities and abstractions that would blunt the FBI, NSA, CIA and the Bush administration from doing what's necessary to win that war.
Or as G-Man put it so well earlier:
Quote:
the G-man said: Dec 20, 5:45 PM
Quote:
the G-man said:
even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things.
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Even if that is true, it's not a good reason to go around a judge. It was the President's job to then go to Congress to get something less cumbersome. Cumbersome is not an acceptable excuse to circumvent our system of checks & balances.
As noted in today's Wall St. Journal:
The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
The above standard appears to apply to what happened here.
the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties.
Furthermore, as noted below, the "system of checks and balances" was, in fact, respected:
Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, President Bush said yesterday. The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them.
Inside the executive branch, the process allowing the wiretaps was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers, by the Attorney General personally, and with the President himself reauthorizing the process every 45 days. In short, the implication that this is some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a political smear.
Quote:
G-man said: Dec 20, 5:48 PM
In fact, as noted above, "the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties."
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I think you're being very disingenuos everytime you say there is bi-partisan support. Yes. while 99% of Dems want to investigate teh President (not the leaker *coughrockerfellercough*) and 2% of Republicans do that would technically there IS representation from both parties possibly making the term bi-partisan technically accurate.
Where do you get your 99%Dems & 2%Republicans figure? You wouldn't be just making up numbers while accusing me of being disingenuos...would you? And there is no "possibly making the term bi-partisan technically accurate" the dictionary is on my side buddy. Here is what comes up via google:
* A term used to refer to an effort endorsed by both political parties or a group composed of members of both political parties. And WBAM I keep bringing up the point that there is bipartisan concern over the President's wiretapping powers in response to you guys continually ignoring those Republicans in your posts. Your not even technically correct addressing this as only a democratic partisan thing.
Quote:
... Try to be intellectually honest otherwise this conversation will consist of nothing by competeing spin....
I've always tried to be intellectually honest, otherwise what is the point? Why would you even want to do "competeing spin" if presumably truth & merit are on your side? 
Since you like deffinitions so much let me define spin for you. Spin is where you take a collection of factys that are technically accurate, but present them in a way that distorts one side of the issue. By your wooden literal dictionary defintion if every single democrat in teh congress and the senate held one view while every republican in teh congress and senate held the opposing view you would "technically, according to your dictionary be able to say that the democratic position held bi-partisan support. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what point your trying to make, but using intellectually dishonest spin tactics aren't gonna win you any converts here.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
M E M, that argument has already been disproven.
WBAM and G-man have both pointed out that the warrants were overly cumbersome and difficult to acquire quickly enough, without needlessly overwhelming the court with warrants, and revealing the surveilance to the terrorists, and causing them not to use phones where they can be overheard.
As is the case now, that the tapping of phone calls to Muslims overseas has been leaked by the media.
True it's been stated by the White House that warrants were cumbersome & difficult to acquite quickly enough but why exactly? We need Congress to see what backs the claim up. Calling something cumbersome isn't proof & the claims about time are hard to believe at face value since FISA allows a wiretap to be started first with court approval coming later How exactly can you get any faster than retroactive approval? FISA proceedings are not held publicly & I'm unaware of any history of FISA judges leaking out sensitive information. It's fair to say skipping over those judges didn't keep sensitive information from being leaked.
Quote:
...In the age of cel phones, and again as WBAM and G-man have pointed out abundantly, in a time of war, our government should have the authorization to do what is necessary to acquire intelligence and prevent terrorism, to save the lives of U.S.soldiers and civilians.
Well and I agree. Congress can still hold some type of closed investigation to see what the NSA has been doing & make changes that restores the checks & balances without hindering their work.
I'll skip your usual Dem bashing. You'll have to find somebody else to play those games.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
It's worth pondering just what it is that the Democrats are arguing here. They claim not that President Bush isn't doing enough to keep America safe from terrorism, but that he's doing too much. The implication is that the threat of terrorism within America is not all that serious and never was--that 9/11, horrific though it was, was a one-off.
There is, at the very least, a tension between this blasé approach and the oft-heard Democratic claim that liberating Iraq increased the threat of terrorism. If that threat still isn't serious enough to justify the merest attenuation of "civil liberties," then this argument against Iraq, even if true, is trivial.
In any I think an argument can be made that the Democrats' current approach to terrorism is a dangerously complacent one.
The 9/11 attacks plainly were not a one-off; even before Sept. 11, 2001, the World Trade Center had been hit in 1993, and Omar Abdel-Rahman, the so-called blind sheik, had gone to prison in a plot to blow up New York City bridges and tunnels. There was also the attack on the USS Cole, among other foreign targets.
True, there hasn't been a major terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. But it would be stunningly fatuous to conclude therefrom that the threat is negligible.
It may be that we are out of danger for now because of the efforts the Bush administration has taken to prevent attacks, and that the Democrats, by opposing those efforts, are inviting another mass murder of Americans. Or it may be that the administration's efforts have not been sufficient, and another terrorist attack is only a matter of time.
Either way, if there is another attack on the scale of 9/11, complacency about terrorism would be wholly untenable. The public would demand much tougher measures.
By fretting about imagined threats to civil liberties today, the Democratic leadership may be helping to endanger real civil liberties tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Not sure what your basing that on G-man. I could understand if there was a chorus of Democrats saying that the wiretapping must stop but as I understand it, that is not the case. There is a call to investigate the wiretapping that some Republicans in congress have joined with many Democrats. This does lead into this op-ed I liked though... Quote:
Eavesdropping and Evading the Law
By David Ignatius
Wednesday, December 28, 2005; Page A21
As we learn more about what was going on under the Bush administration's secret surveillance program, it's clear the National Security Agency has developed some powerful new tools against terrorist adversaries. That's all the more reason these innovative spying methods should be brought within the rule of law -- so that they can be used effectively and legally.
That should be a New Year's resolution for Congress and the administration: Amend our laws on surveillance to establish a framework for using these new techniques of collecting and analyzing information. Because the issues are so sensitive, part of that debate may have to be secret, but that's an inevitable part of legislative oversight of intelligence.
Boosting Democracy, Inadvertently
The challenge in the coming debate will be to find the right balance between national security and civil liberties. The loudest arguments will come from those who see the issue in black and white -- who want to tilt in one direction, toward security or liberty. But those won't be the wisest arguments. America is in for a long struggle against terrorism, and it will need sensible rules that embed necessary intelligence activities firmly within the law.
We know only the barest outlines of what the NSA has been doing. The most reliable accounts have appeared in the New York Times, the newspaper that broke the story. Although the headline has been "warrantless wiretapping," the Times accounts suggest the program actually was something closer to a data-mining system that collected and analyzed vast amounts of digitized data in an effort to find patterns that might identify potential terrorists.
Here's what James Risen and Eric Lichtblau said in their original Dec. 16 story, explaining the origins of the program after Sept. 11, 2001: "The CIA seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The NSA surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, they said. In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the al Qaeda figures, the NSA began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said."
The Times reporters explained details of the program in a Dec. 24 story: "NSA technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects."
The heart of the program may be this effort to find links and patterns. William Arkin explained in a Dec. 23 posting in his washingtonpost.com column, Early Warning, how the data-mining process might work: "Massive amounts of collected data -- actual intercepts of phone calls, e-mails, etc. -- together with 'transaction' data -- travel or credit card records or telephone or Internet service provider logs -- are mixed through a mind-boggling array of government and private sector software programs to look for potential matches."
This is the kind of innovative technology the government should be using, with appropriate safeguards. It employs computer algorithms to discern patterns that would probably be invisible to human analysts. It searches electronically amid the haystack of information for the one dangerous needle. In the phrase that was often used in the scathing Sept. 11 post-mortems, it seeks to "connect the dots."
The legal problems, as Arkin suggests, involve the dots -- what digital information can the government legitimately collect and save for later analysis, and under what legal safeguards? As it trolls the ocean of data, how can the government satisfy legal requirements for warrants that specify at the outset what may only be clear at the end of the search -- namely, specific links to terrorist groups? These and other questions will vex lawyers and politicians in the coming debate, but they aren't a reason for jettisoning these techniques.
America's best intelligence asset is technology. The truth is that America has never been especially good at running spies or plotting covert actions. Our special talent has been the application of technology to complex problems of surveillance. That kept American intelligence in business during the Cold War, and it provides our thin margin of safety against terrorism. It's all the more important now, when al Qaeda's hierarchical structure has been broken and the emerging threat comes from flat, invisible networks of intensely motivated people. How will we see these new terrorists coming?
America needs surveillance and analytical techniques that can connect the dots. But even more, it needs a clear legal framework for this effort. Otherwise it won't be sustainable. In that sense, continuing the current lawless approach would be the true gift to the enemy.
Washington Post
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
From the Washington Times:
Some centrist Democrats say attacks by their party leaders on the Bush administration's eavesdropping on suspected terrorist conversations will further weaken the party's credibility on national security.
That concern arises from recent moves by liberal Democrats to block the extension of parts of the USA Patriot Act in the Senate and denunciations of President Bush amid concerns that these initiatives could violate the civil liberties of innocent Americans.
"I think when you suggest that civil liberties are just as much at risk today as the country is from terrorism, you've gone too far if you leave that impression. I don't believe that's true," said Michael O'Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution who advises Democrats on defense issues.
"I get nervous when I see the Democrats playing this [civil liberties] issue out too far. They had better be careful about the politics of it," said Mr. O'Hanlon, who says the Patriot Act is "good legislation."
These Democrats say attacks on anti-terrorist intelligence programs will deepen mistrust of their ability to protect the nation's security, a weakness that led in part to the defeat of Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, last year.
"The Republicans still hold the advantage on every national-security issue we tested," said Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster and former adviser to President Clinton, who co-authored a Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) memo on the party's national-security weaknesses.
Nervousness among Democrats intensified earlier this month after Democrats led a filibuster against the Patriot Act that threatened to block the measure, followed by a victory cry from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who declared at a party rally, "We killed the Patriot Act."
After Mr. Bush sharply attacked Mr. Reid, saying lack of the Patriot Act "will leave us in a weaker position in the fight against brutal killers," Senate Democrats dropped their filibuster and accepted a six-month extension. A Republican-backed five-week extension was adopted last week by the House and Senate.
Recent polls say 56 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Bush is doing to protect the country from another terrorist attack.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
An appropiate time for #6 Quote:
6: Debate is between those supporting civil liberties and those seeking to prevent terrorism
Many media figures have created a false dichotomy by framing the debate over the Bush administration's actions as one between those who support protecting civil liberties and those who favor protecting America from another deadly terrorist attack. For example, NBC host Katie Couric claimed the debate amounted to "legal analysts and constitutional scholars versus Americans, who say civil liberties are important, but we don't want another September 11," while NBC's Mitchell wondered whether Americans should be more concerned about "[a] terror attack or someone going into their hard drive and intercepting their emails."
Such statements set up exactly the false debate put forth by Cheney and Bush to defend the administration's actions, as Mitchell subsequently noted on the December 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MITCHELL: [T]hey set up successfully, the White House, this premise of you're either for security and protecting the American people post-9-11 or you're worried about surveillance. This either-or proposition, when a lot of people say that's a false choice.
Media Matters
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
An appropiate time for #6
Quote:
6: Debate is between those supporting civil liberties and those seeking to prevent terrorism
Many media figures have created a false dichotomy by framing the debate over the Bush administration's actions as one between those who support protecting civil liberties and those who favor protecting America from another deadly terrorist attack. For example, NBC host Katie Couric claimed the debate amounted to "legal analysts and constitutional scholars versus Americans, who say civil liberties are important, but we don't want another September 11," while NBC's Mitchell wondered whether Americans should be more concerned about "[a] terror attack or someone going into their hard drive and intercepting their emails."
Such statements set up exactly the false debate put forth by Cheney and Bush to defend the administration's actions, as Mitchell subsequently noted on the December 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MITCHELL: [T]hey set up successfully, the White House, this premise of you're either for security and protecting the American people post-9-11 or you're worried about surveillance. This either-or proposition, when a lot of people say that's a false choice.
Media Matters
I think this is a really dumb-assed quote, and typical of liberal arguments in general, in using a very convoluted rationalization to say something isn't what it clearly is.
The argument between the Bush administration and its critics about the wiretapping of Muslim terror suspects is about weighing national security against civil liberties.
And for liberals to allege otherwise in convoluted arguments just makes clear that either :
1) liberals know the wiretapping of Muslim terror suspects is legal and necessary, and are just using whatever ambiguity they can exploit to smear the Bush administration. Again.
or
2) liberals simply don't get it, and fail to understand what the real issue is, of defending the nation and stopping terrorism.
And regardless of which mindset guides these liberal distortions, the American people can see for themselves what the real issue is.
As G-man quoted at the top of this page, polls show the American people aren't buying the liberal distortions, and have more confidence in Republicans to lead the country in a time of war.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Robert F. Turner, is co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, and served as counsel to the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, 1982-84. He explains why Bush's actions were legal: For nearly 200 years it was understood by all three branches that intelligence collection--especially in wartime--was an exclusive presidential prerogative vested in the president by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Marshall and many others recognized that the grant of "executive power" to the president included control over intelligence gathering. It was not by chance that there was no provision for congressional oversight of intelligence matters in the National Security Act of 1947.
the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and when Congress attempts to usurp powers granted to the president, its members betray their oath of office. In certain cases, such as the War Powers Resolution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it might well have crossed that line.
Keep in mind that while the Carter administration asked Congress to enact the FISA statute in 1978, Attorney General Griffin Bell emphasized that the law "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." And in 1994, when the Clinton administration invited Congress to expand FISA to cover physical as well as electronic searches, the associate attorney general testified: "Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority" under the Constitution. "We do," she concluded.
In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
America is at war with a dangerous enemy. Since 9/11, the president, our intelligence services and our military forces have done a truly extraordinary job--taking the war to our enemies and keeping them from conducting a single attack within this country (so far).
But we are still very much at risk, and those who seek partisan political advantage by portraying efforts to monitor communications between suspected foreign terrorists and (often unknown) Americans as being akin to Nixon's "enemies lists" are serving neither their party nor their country. The leakers of this sensitive national security activity and their Capitol Hill supporters seem determined to guarantee al Qaeda a secure communications channel into this country so long as they remember to include one sympathetic permanent resident alien not previously identified by NSA or the FBI as a foreign agent on their distribution list.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
the real issue is, of defending the nation and stopping terrorism.
Why does George Bush think he can stop terrorism with a war? Where does this logic come from?
You cannot force an opposing group of a wholly different ideology into submission by acts of war.
Do we feel that acts of terrorism and aggression *against us* stop us, alter our resolve, change our mindsets, challenge us to reconsider our ideologies? Or do we feel that these acts make us more steadfast in our beliefs? I think we know the answer to that.
So why in God's name should we feel that acts of war perpetrated by us will do to "them" what we argue they will NOT do to us? The logic is utterly specious.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
G-man & you & the other boys are lacking merit in your argument. Where are all the Dem Congressmen that are saying the wiretaps must be stopped? It appears to be zero, leaving you with just an empty partisan accusation.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
So, MEM, is the alleged lack of Democratic oppostion to the wiretapping a sign they now admit its legal? Or a sign they've seen the polls support Bush actions?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
So, MEM, is the alleged lack of Democratic oppostion to the wiretapping a sign they now admit its legal? Or a sign they've seen the polls support Bush actions?
So this would be your way of saying you have nothing to base your accusations on? As for your fake question this is about the President's actions being unconstitutional & trying to dodge an investigation. What needs to be done to fight the terrorist will continue but with proper oversight.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
As noted in the past, I've explained why the wiretapping was legal.
Also, with all due respect, your party leaders can't have it both ways. You can't, on one hand, tell us that they want the President investigated, or even impeached, for this and, on the other, tell us they don't oppose what he did.
You're telling is that what the president did was "unconstitutional." If that's so, then you're telling us you want it stopped.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
As noted in the past, I've explained why the wiretapping was legal.
As noted in the past, there are arguments why the legal claims are at best questionable & need to be investigated.
Quote:
...You're telling is that what the president did was "unconstitutional." If that's so, then you're telling us you want it stopped.
No. The argument is that it needs to be fixed so that it is constitutional & has some true oversight beyond the President. Your presenting the President's claims as proven fact, their not. Congress needs to check it out & restore what checks & balances they can. If Bush's claims are true, he has nothing to worry about with a Republican controlled Congress.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Despite your claims that the matter needs "to be investigated," you keep telling us that what dis was "unconstitutional."
Therefore, you have obviously made up your mind it is illegal and should be stopped. Any "investigation" must, therefore, in your mind be for the sole purpose of publicizing the matter further and/or punishing the president for what he did. Both goals would have the effect of preventing this from happening again.
As you may know, the purpose of a covert intelligence operation is that it's a secret. It's kept secret so it can be used against the enemy. Once it's no longer a secret, its effectiveness is reduced to nil.
You, on behalf of your party, on arguing that we should have highly publicized show hearings at which every aspect of this covert operation is dissected and provided to the media and public. Some of that public will most likely be current or potential terrorist operatives.
In addition, it should be noted that you have argued that, if the legalities are ambiguous, that in itself requires a public investigation. You are attempting to establish a precedent that any president who engages in a covert act where the law is ambiguous faces a public investigation of that covert act. That precedent will, by its nature, have a chilling effect on the efforts of future presidents to defend the nation.
As such, despite your protests to the contrary, you are, in fact, trying to prevent this president, and future presidents, from wiretapping suspected enemy combatants who may be plotting further attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
...You, on behalf of your party, on arguing that we should have highly publicized show hearings at which every aspect of this covert operation is dissected and provided to the media and public. Some of that public will most likely be current or potential terrorist operatives.
And you ignore that 2 of the 5 senaters who wrote requesting an investigation are Republican & you also ignore the fact that any investigation would be behind closed doors, as they should be.
Quote:
...In addition, it should be noted that you have argued that, if the legalities are ambiguous, that in itself requires a public investigation. You are attempting to establish a precedent that any president who engages in a covert act where the law is ambiguous faces a public investigation of that covert act. That precedent will, by its nature, have a chilling effect on the efforts of future presidents to defend the nation.
No, it would only be a bad thing if Congress didn't do it's duty. This wiretapping power of Bush's if left uninvestigated will be passed on to future Presidents. When I brought this up earlier, you replied as long as they followed the law you were fine with it. The obvious question is what law would they be required to follow?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Not really surprising. He's probably asleep while listening to Hooked On Phonics tapes...
Or for WBAM, would that be Hewcked On Fonix?
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
I can't say to much about WBAM's spelling since mine may be even worse than his. But I don't understand his use of the snoozy icon. Sure some of my response to G-man was repetitive but it did point out that his argument not to investigate Bush's wiretapping was based on the false principle that it would be a public investigation.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I can't say to much about WBAM's spelling since mine may be even worse than his. But I don't understand his use of the snoozy icon.
Sentence fragment: -30 points.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
...Sentence fragment: -30 points.
Then there is the matter of grammar 
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I can't say to much about WBAM's spelling since mine may be even worse than his. But I don't understand his use of the snoozy icon. Sure some of my response to G-man was repetitive but it did point out that his argument not to investigate Bush's wiretapping was based on the false principle that it would be a public investigation.
It means WBAM doesn't want to hear the arguments anymore, he's made up his mind, and he's essentially ignoring what you have to say.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Wow - you could apply that to a good ninety percent of the people who frequent this particular forum!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Apparently, the American people approve of what Bush did. His approval rating is going up. Do the Democrats (and one or two liberal Republican Senators) really want to keep harping on this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
...
Do the Democrats (and one or two liberal Republican Senators) really want to keep harping on this?
Actually it's more Republican Senators than that. And yes, considering that it's an important constitutional matter, the polls your quick to play up for now don't matter.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Recent update: Quote:
SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - President George W. Bush defended domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency on Sunday after a newspaper report about a Justice Department official's resistance to the program prompted new calls for a Senate inquiry.
The New York Times reported on Sunday that James Comey, a deputy to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, was concerned about the legality of the NSA program and refused to extend it in 2004. White House aides then turned to Ashcroft while the attorney general was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery, the Times said....
Quote:
...The Times said accounts of the hospital meeting differed, but that some officials said Ashcroft also appeared reluctant to give his authorization to continue with aspects of the program.
It was unclear if the White House persuaded Ashcroft to approve the program or proceeded without him, the Times said.
Reuters
It's worth noting that even Ashcroft had problems with Bush's wiretapping!
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Not really surprising. He's probably asleep while listening to Hooked On Phonics tapes...
Or for WBAM, would that be Hewcked On Fonix?
That's "Hooked on Ebonics", Fo' Shizzle!
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I can't say to much about WBAM's spelling since mine may be even worse than his. But I don't understand his use of the snoozy icon. Sure some of my response to G-man was repetitive but it did point out that his argument not to investigate Bush's wiretapping was based on the false principle that it would be a public investigation.
I'm glad someone acctually understood that I was making a point rather than a knee jerk, "If he's bored with the argument it must because he's a conservitive affraid of the truth" I think this debae has become repetitive. Thereisn't much more to be added on either side. I hold no illusions that I'm going to say something so profound that all teh liberals will convert at the wieght of my perfect argument. We said our piece, you've said you'res. Now we're just cycling through the arguments again.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
I would dissagree WBAM. My last post pointed out that there were questions of the NSA program from Ashcroft's people. Before that G-man argued that public hearings would be a bad thing & I pointed out that any classified stuff would be closed to the public. It's odd that you have this attitude towards this thread but not others that are fully partisan?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:The New York Times reported on Sunday that James Comey, a deputy to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, was concerned about the legality of the NSA program and refused to extend it in 2004. White House aides then turned to Ashcroft while the attorney general was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery, the Times said...The Times said accounts of the hospital meeting differed, but that some officials said Ashcroft also appeared reluctant to give his authorization to continue with aspects of the program
The story also reported that the Department of Justice had been pursuing an ongoing audit of the NSA data mining project, and "[t]hat review is not known to have found any instances of abuses."
That fact was, naturally, buried in the story, which instead focused on the internal Bush Administration debate over the NSA operation.
Furthermore, given the turf warfare such a program could engender -- Department of Justice, NSA, NSC, CIA, DOD, Homeland Security -- it shouldn't have been a surprise that there were ongoing debates and infighting.
As someone whose actually worked in government, even at the the local level, new policies often, if not always, create debates and turf fights. Everyone wants their opinion on the record, they want their guy at the table. This would seem to be of those situations.
Unfortunately I think you have people with axes to grind leaking and making it appear that this particular situation was somehow different.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Thanks for continuing to push the "9-11 as Reichstag" theory.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Well, that cartoon's funny even if it's incorrect.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
And watch, another terrorist event will happen on Bush's watch and then all you Cons can blame us Liberals for it.
I'll bet you'll even argue for us to go to interment camps just for our own good. Yep, I can see it now.
Then another one will happen and maybe Bush will say we should just suspend the Consitition for the duration of this war on a concept.
Last edited by Jim Jackson; 2006-01-03 4:28 PM.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
...
Furthermore, given the turf warfare such a program could engender -- Department of Justice, NSA, NSC, CIA, DOD, Homeland Security -- it shouldn't have been a surprise that there were ongoing debates and infighting.
The debate was that Bush yes men were not going along with the "it's legal because I says so" argument.
Quote:
...Unfortunately I think you have people with axes to grind leaking and making it appear that this particular situation was somehow different.
Or there are Republicans & Democrats that are rising beyond partisanship to address a serious question of a President's use of power. Some people of course are more interested in partisan attacks than actual debate.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Bush yes men
If they weren't immediately going along with it, that means they aren't "yes men." Which tends to discredit your theory that this was approved "because [Bush] said so."
I also notice you ignored the point about the Justice Department auditing the program and apparently not finding problems.
I guess that was one of those "odd numbered" days, or whatever, when they ARE "yes men."
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
And watch, another terrorist event will happen on Bush's watch and then all you Cons can blame us Liberals for it.
I'll bet you'll even argue for us to go to interment camps just for our own good. Yep, I can see it now.
Then another one will happen and maybe Bush will say we should just suspend the Consitition for the duration of this war on a concept.
With all due respect, that kind of hysteria is exactly why "your" camp always ends up looking silly and/or weak when issues of security and defense come up.
Reasonable people can disagree on this issue, sure. However, at the same time, ideas and programs (or opposition to same) have consequences. If one party or another wants to kill what some have called a successful program in combatting terrorism, that side needs to be aware of the potential consequences.
By all accounts this is a fairly narrowly tailored program. And, yet, the liberals--including you--are trotting out the tired old "Bush is Nazi" rants instead of addressing the substantive posts about legality and/or explaining why they don't think this will hurt our ability to prevent acts of terror.
You can parade all the John Murthas, John Kerrys and Max Clelands out here you want to tell us they're vets. However, if those vets are going to engage a debate or endanger civilians people are still going to trust the Republicans on security issues more.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
By all accounts this is a fairly narrowly tailored program. And, yet, the liberals--including you--are trotting out the tired old "Bush is Nazi" rants
Why shouldn't we? You've show two cartoons depicting Liberals as Terrorist Enablers.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
