NationStates Jolt Archive

Bravo (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-12-20T225023Z_01_EIC066527_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml) say I.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic and Republican calls mounted on Tuesday for U.S. congressional hearings into President George W. Bush's assertion that he can order warrantless spying on Americans with suspected terrorist ties.

Vice President Dick Cheney predicted a backlash against critics of the administration's anti-terrorism policies. He also dismissed charges that Bush overstepped his constitutional bounds when he implemented the recently disclosed eavesdropping shortly after the September 11 attacks.

Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine joined Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan, Dianne Feinstein of California and Ron Wyden of Oregon in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees into whether the government eavesdropped "without appropriate legal authority."
I wonder if Cheney's just whistling past the graveyard now, talking tough in hopes that this won't be as serious as it's turning out to be. I also wonder if this is another sign that the republican party is getting into "dump the president, save our own asses" mode for the 2006 elections.

They need to do it. Establish if it's right or wrong, and go from there. An investigation is the best thing to do at this point, especially a bipartisan one since it will produce real results.

They need to do it. Establish if it's right or wrong, and go from there. An investigation is the best thing to do at this point, especially a bipartisan one since it will produce real results.

Well said.

So how long till Karl Rove gets indicted? Is it Fitzmas yet? Funny how these scandals have a habit of not panning out the way Dems fantasize.

So how long till Karl Rove gets indicted? Is it Fitzmas yet? Funny how these scandals have a habit of not panning out the way Dems fantasize.You'll have to ask Fitzgerald that, or better yet, wait until the Grand Jury that's still hearing evidence makes a determination whether or not to bring charges. Are you still going to be smirking if Rove is indicted?

You'll have to ask Fitzgerald that, or better yet, wait until the Grand Jury that's still hearing evidence makes a determination whether or not to bring charges. Are you still going to be smirking if Rove is indicted?
Are you going to shut up about it if he isn't?

They need to do it. Establish if it's right or wrong, and go from there. An investigation is the best thing to do at this point, especially a bipartisan one since it will produce real results.

I agree with this. Hopefully it'll be better than the last several bipartisan investigation.

You'll have to ask Fitzgerald that, or better yet, wait until the Grand Jury that's still hearing evidence makes a determination whether or not to bring charges. Are you still going to be smirking if Rove is indicted?

indictment =/= conviction :D

Are you going to shut up about it if he isn't?
Didn't realize I'd been talking about it that much, but to answer your question, if Fitzgerald ends his investigation and Rove isn't indicted, there'll be nothing left to talk about as far as that's concerned.

Didn't realize I'd been talking about it that much
Didn't mean to imply you were, but given your question, it was only fair to ask.

according to reports ive heard on this topic on tv and radio

the president's authority rests on a resolution passed by congress allowing him to use whatever means necessary to catch those who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

he takes this to mean that as long as there is a "war on terror" he can do as he pleases.

*shudder*

according to reports ive heard on this topic on tv and radio

the president's authority rests on a resolution passed by congress allowing him to use whatever means necessary to catch those who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

he takes this to mean that as long as there is a "war on terror" he can do as he pleases.

*shudder*

As opposed to this power being advocated in 1994?

They need to do it. Establish if it's right or wrong, and go from there. An investigation is the best thing to do at this point, especially a bipartisan one since it will produce real results.
And about time too. If Republicans really believe in the "rule of law", then they should support an investigation of an apparantly illegal act by the President. Illegal wiretaps definitely count as an impeachable offense, and demand investigation.

(Of course, I don't expect a Republican-controlled Congress to actually go so far as to impeach Bush, no matter how blatant the offense.)

:rolleyes:

And about time too. If Republicans really believe in the "rule of law", then they should support an investigation of an apparantly illegal act by the President. Illegal wiretaps definitely count as an impeachable offense, and demand investigation.

Are you implying that Republicans DON"T believe in the rule of law? Someone has been listening to Howard Dean for far to long if ya believe that.

indictment =/= conviction :D

Were you still grinning when Clinton didn't get convicted and removed from office Cornholiu?

according to reports ive heard on this topic on tv and radio

the president's authority rests on a resolution passed by congress allowing him to use whatever means necessary to catch those who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

he takes this to mean that as long as there is a "war on terror" he can do as he pleases.

*shudder*

Here's a lesson for future generations: Whenever a Republican President declares war on a Noun, get ready for wasted spending and no real results.

Were you still grinning when Clinton didn't get convicted and removed from office Cornholiu?[/QUOTE]
To be fair, Clinton did get impeached, just not removed from office. (though why he was being asked questions about his sex life in a real estate investigation still eludes me....)
And this-
Cornholiu?
While clever, wasn't really neccisary. He gives you bloopies, no need to lower the discourse.

Here's a lesson for future generations: Whenever a Republican President declares war on a Noun, get ready for wasted spending and no real results.

Can you have a war on any other word? Doesnt it have to be on a noun? I dont know, Im just asking...

Were you still grinning when Clinton didn't get convicted and removed from office Corneliu?

If the evidence was allowed in, he would've been convicted and tossed from office. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending) the evidence wasn't allowed in by the Senate.

Since it was decided, and he was found not guilty, its over.

*edit* I fixed your little spelling problem.

Can you have a war on any other word? Doesnt it have to be on a noun? I dont know, Im just asking...

With any president other than our current one the answer to your question would be yes. In Bush's case... Well, we'll just say that grammar isn't his strong suit.

*prepares for the war on scary*

You realize that this "extra" power of the president doesn't in any way shape or form make anyone safer don't you? No extra abilities to fight terrorism are created. All it is is a way for a President to wiretap with impunity without ANY kind of oversight or accountability.

There were provisions in the law that allowed him to do what he wanted to do. He circumvented it.

The wiretapping itself has already been deemed legal. See Echelon for reference. The issue here is whether or not Bush can use an executive order to circumvent congressional law. Specifically FISA. Although, to be perfectly frank, all Bush did was eliminate the middleman with his executive order, as FISA states that the NSA itself can't do the spying on americans. Which allows the UK to do the spying using Echelon and give us the information.

The wiretapping itself has already been deemed legal. See Echelon for reference. The issue here is whether or not Bush can use an executive order to circumvent congressional law. Specifically FISA. Although, to be perfectly frank, all Bush did was eliminate the middleman with his executive order, as FISA states that the NSA itself can't do the spying on americans. Which allows the UK to do the spying using Echelon and give us the information.
Warrantless wiretapping is the issue here, especially since Bush himself has admitted that we were doing it--not getting the UK to do it.

Some things I've found interesting in the spin, especially the White House pushback. In an interview, Alberto Gonzales makes two cases for Bush's authority--the first is basically the imperial presidency theory, which was busted back when Nixon tried it with the White House tapes. The second was that the 9/11 use of force resolution gave Bush the necessary power. In the same interview, however, Gonzales, when asked why they didn't just go to Congress and ask for the authority, says that they probably couldn't have gotten it. So which is it? Did Congress give the authority even though Gonzales conceded that they couldn't have gotten it later?

So how long till Karl Rove gets indicted? Is it Fitzmas yet? Funny how these scandals have a habit of not panning out the way Dems fantasize.

Sad how even in the face of a bi-partisan call for an investigation of the illegal wiretaps and domestic surveillence --a threat to the freedom of us all, you can only think in terms of petty partisanship.

And I don't hear "Scooter" Libby laughing at Fitzgerald's investigation.

The wiretapping itself has already been deemed legal. See Echelon for reference. The issue here is whether or not Bush can use an executive order to circumvent congressional law. Specifically FISA. Although, to be perfectly frank, all Bush did was eliminate the middleman with his executive order, as FISA states that the NSA itself can't do the spying on americans. Which allows the UK to do the spying using Echelon and give us the information.

Please provide more information and/or sources for this assertion.

I'm suprised a libertarian would defend this. You must be more partisan than I thought.

As if Bush will back down? He seems to have dodged the whole "torture" fiasco so now he's jumping on illegal wiretaps. Nice if some politician will get some backbone and stop him from trampling our civil rights.

Here's a lesson for future generations: Whenever a Republican President declares war on a Noun, get ready for wasted spending and no real results.
The war on durgs, the wa on... Damn, I think you're onto something! ;)

Let's have another go nowhere investigation. Mark my words- nothing will come of this.

I'm suprised a libertarian would defend this. You must be more partisan than I thought.
Don't be. There's as many fashion-label libertarians as there are communists.
Some wear it to sound intellectual, some to piss off their parents, others just to appear ambiguous.