NationStates Jolt Archive

Now Hagel is one of the few Republicans I respect, even though I disagree with him on many issues, because he's always seemed to be a straight shooter, especially on the matter of torture and civil liberties. I wish his voting record matched his rhetoric more closely, but I'll take what I can get.

And here's what I got today (http://www.theindependent.com/stories/122205/new_hagel22.shtml):
But while Hagel recognizes that there are extraordinary circumstances where domestic spying is necessary for national security reasons, he said there are right and wrong ways to go about it.

"We must find the equilibrium and center of gravity that protects our national security as well as our civil rights," Hagel said. "We have been able to do that for more than 230 years."

He said that accountability is what's at issue and why the hearings are necessary.

Hagel said a law that was passed in 1978, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, has worked "very well."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides a statutory framework for the use of electronic surveillance in the context of foreign intelligence gathering. The legislation was passed by Congress to strike a balance between national security interests and personal privacy rights.

"It holds any administration accountable," Hagel said. "The Congress is part of it. The courts are part of it. It plays out the way these kind of intelligence oversight issues should be handled."

He said the law was passed in 1978 because of abuse of domestic spying by the Nixon administration over Watergate and Vietnam.

This week Vice President Dick Cheney defended the spying program and called for "strong and robust" presidential powers.

Cheney -- a former member of congress, defense secretary and White House chief of staff under President Gerald Ford -- said executive authority has been eroding since the Watergate and Vietnam issues during the Nixon era.

"Every president, that we know of, has complied with the law (FISA)," Hagel said. "No president is above the law. We are a nation of laws and no president, majority leader, or chief justice of the Supreme Court can unilaterally or arbitrarily avoid a law or dismiss a law. If the vice president holds a different point of view, then he holds a different point of view."

Based on the facts that are out there concerning whether domestic spying abuses were taking place, Hagel said, there was a "breakdown."

"I take an oath of office to the Constitution," he said. "I don't take an oath of office to the vice president, a president or a political party. My obligation and responsibility are to the people I represent and the country I serve. I do what I think is right for the people I represent and the country I serve."

And part of that responsibility, Hagel said, is assuring that Americans' civil liberties are not violated or abused.

Hagel, referring to President Ronald Reagan, said people trusted him because he was not a "vitriolic person or one to impugn the motives of people who disagreed with him."

"Never did he do that," Hagel said. "There is no place for that in politics because it debases our system and our process. You can agree or disagree with your leaders and say whatever you like about your elected leaders and throw them out, but I do draw the line on the vilification and impugning of motives because someone disagrees with you."

Thank you Senator Hagel. Take the poll.

No, because hearings are necessary to find out if any wrongdoing occured. If they find that the President did wrong, than we can rest assured knowing our civil liberties have been protected. If they find he did nothing wrong, at least people will shut up about it. As of now, we don't know enough to make a decision either way but an investigation would clear that up.

No, because hearings are necessary to find out if any wrongdoing occured. If they find that the President did wrong, than we can rest assured knowing our civil liberties have been protected. If they find he did nothing wrong, at least people will shut up about it. As of now, we don't know enough to make a decision either way but an investigation would clear that up.I hope you're right. I probably wouldn't vote for Hagel for President because I disagree with him on too many other issues that are important to me personally, but at least I wouldn't cringe in agony if he did win, the way I would if, say, Jeb! were elected.

I hope you're right. I probably wouldn't vote for Hagel for President because I disagree with him on too many other issues that are important to me personally, but at least I wouldn't cringe in agony if he did win, the way I would if, say, Jeb! were elected.

He's got a great record on the economy and free trade, but he's a little too right-wing on social issues for me.

Republicans that put issues over party loyalty:

Hagel, McCain, occasionally Arlen Specter.

...Any others? They're so few and far between.

Republicans that put issues over party loyalty:

Hagel, McCain, occasionally Arlen Specter.

...Any others? They're so few and far between.
I'd dump McCain from that list--when the rubber meets the road, he shills just like the rest--and I'd add Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chaffee. We'll see about Specter when the Alito hearings start--there's some talk that Alito will be asked about presidential authority and wiretapping.

im glad to see that there are republicans willing to take the chance

3 important points

1) bush is a lame duck, none of his big proposals are going to get passed, and there is no reason to kiss his ass anymore

2) no one likes their powers fucked with (remember how the courts dealt with the congress messing with the thoroughly ajudicated terry schiavo issue)

3) the people may well end up pissed about this and it serves every republican well to be seen as a champion of the people.

im glad to see that there are republicans willing to take the chance

3 important points

1) bush is a lame duck, none of his big proposals are going to get passed, and there is no reason to kiss his ass anymore

2) no one likes their powers fucked with (remember how the courts dealt with the congress messing with the thoroughly ajudicated terry schiavo issue)

3) the people may well end up pissed about this and it serves every republican well to be seen as a champion of the people.
He's got 3 years left, and as long as the Repubs stay in control of the house and senate, I wouldn't be calling him a lame duck just yet.

Let's see, Nebraska has 5----count them on one hand----5 electorial votes. Not much chance anyway. May as well make a reputation as a swing vote in the senate where the size of the state doesn't matter. He can trade his vote for all kinds of good things for his people.

Hagel is a RINO who never stood a snowball's chance of winning the Republican nomination.

He's got 3 years left, and as long as the Repubs stay in control of the house and senate, I wouldn't be calling him a lame duck just yet.
Unless the Republican party decides that the accumulated scandals, bad press, failed projects, and media embarrassments will hurt Republicans in mid-term elections. It already seems likely to me that the party will not float another neocon for president in 2008 -- unless Satan delivers some miraculous successes between now and then. Since the neocons don't have Delay as their enforcer to keep everyone voting in line, it is becoming increasingly clear that the party is thinking about its own, post-Bush future now. Bush's poll numbers are going up right now, but it's too soon to tell if this is merely a bubble after the Iraq elections. Nothing else he is doing seems to be getting very good responses. If the numbers slide again, the party may decide that his policies are tainted and it would be better to put them on ice until they've got a different president to try selling them again.

Hagel is a RINO who never stood a snowball's chance of winning the Republican nomination.I've found that RINO and DINO get tossed around an awful lot when politicians go against a person's pet projects. Hagel is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who has challenged Bush on only a couple of things--torture and the conduct of the war, and now calling for hearings on this subject. The only way he's a RINO is if you consider a RINO anyone who doesn't fellate Bush on national television.

But while Hagel recognizes that there are extraordinary circumstances where domestic spying is necessary for national security reasons, he said there are right and wrong ways to go about it.
Apparently the right way to do it is to use the giant fucking loophole in FISA. All Bush did when you really get down to it is cut down the turnaround time for searching through the intelligence.

Apparently the right way to do it is to use the giant fucking loophole in FISA. All Bush did when you really get down to it is cut down the turnaround time for searching through the intelligence.
Well, that would be the legal way to go about it. It's not a loophole if it was put in there deliberately.

That's the most disturbing thing about this whole problem to me--there was a perfectly simple way to go about doing the surveillance, more than one, actually, if you throw in the ability to partner with the UK via Echelon, and yet they insisted on breaking the law. I'm really trying to not get conspiracy-theorist on this, but I have to wonder who they were listening to if they didn't want to let anyone know what was going on? Were they listening in on conversations that they knew wouldn't pass the probable cause test? Did they not trust the British to keep it quiet? Why break the law when the FISA court has been so willing to give them the benefit of the doubt over the years?

Well, that would be the legal way to go about it. It's not a loophole if it was put in there deliberately.

That's the most disturbing thing about this whole problem to me--there was a perfectly simple way to go about doing the surveillance, more than one, actually, if you throw in the ability to partner with the UK via Echelon, and yet they insisted on breaking the law. I'm really trying to not get conspiracy-theorist on this, but I have to wonder who they were listening to if they didn't want to let anyone know what was going on? Were they listening in on conversations that they knew wouldn't pass the probable cause test? Did they not trust the British to keep it quiet? Why break the law when the FISA court has been so willing to give them the benefit of the doubt over the years?

EXACTLY! WHen they go through a secretive and illegal route to accomplish what they could as easily do through proper channels, only a rube doesn't question why. And only the naiive think the intent was pure.

Why break the law when the FISA court has been so willing to give them the benefit of the doubt over the years?
It has to do with how fast it occurs. Direct by the executive order is much more likely to allow interception of any major plots quickly whereas going through the court or the UK wastes time. The idea is simply to go about it as efficiently as possible. That being said I don't think he should be able to tap private lines without a normal warrant. But then I'm distrustful of big government. OTOH if he is going to go about it then it makes sense to do what he did.

It has to do with how fast it occurs. Direct by the executive order is much more likely to allow interception of any major plots quickly whereas going through the court or the UK wastes time. The idea is simply to go about it as efficiently as possible. That being said I don't think he should be able to tap private lines without a normal warrant. But then I'm distrustful of big government. OTOH if he is going to go about it then it makes sense to do what he did.

The President's wiretapping isn't any faster than going through the court because you have 3 days after beginning a wiretap to get a warrant under the current LEGAL procedure! No wasted time.

If you know enough to conduct a specific wiretap then you have enough to cite probable cause, considering how very very few warrants have been refused.

Saying the President needs the ability to work faster is a non-argument. The ONLY thing this wiretapping procedure allows the President to do is to wiretap without any oversight whatsoever.

I want to be clear here--I'm not saying that Bush was using these wiretaps a la Nixon to go after political enemies, although I'll concede that is a possibility. My gut tells me that this was more of an attempt to expand presidential authority than anything else (also related to Nixon, but in a different manner). I say that because so far the administration response has basically been "we've been doing it, and fuck you, we're going to keep doing it." If they were going after political enemies, that would be a signal to anyone uncomfortable with the situation now that it's in the open to come out and blast the administration. I don't think they're so dumb as to challenge the people doing the spying like that. I just think this is another case where the administration is saying "the President is supreme and you can't do anything about it."

Good for Hagel. I can respect someone with whom I do not always agree so long as they have integrity, which he has shown in this matter.

Rino/dino = ?

Ya know, the President could make us safer faster and with less argument if we just abolished Congress. Have the President select a Secretary of the Legislature to write the laws and the President can pass them. That should speed things up, don't you think? We'll be totally safe then, right?

Ya know, the President could make us safer faster and with less argument if we just abolished Congress. Have the President select a Secretary of the Legislature to write the laws and the President can pass them. That should speed things up, don't you think? We'll be totally safe then, right?
Very Palpatine-ish of you.
Unfortunately i hear us being one event away from arguing about that very attitude. Goddamnit.

Cuddly Misanthropy']Rino/dino = ?

republican in name only/ democrat in name only

Cuddly Misanthropy']Rino/dino = ?
Republican/Democrat In Name Only. It's generally used to refer to someone who has bucked the party on a certain issue, regardless of their stances generally.

For instance, many people refer to Joe Lieberman (incorrectly, in my view) as a DINO, because he's constantly badmouthing the Democratic leadership on tv, but his voting record is generally progressive. He's a media whore, and I wouldn't vote for him on a bet, but he's not a DINO. McCain is his counterpart in the Republican party--voting record says conservative but reputation says moderate to Democrat, if you read the comments over at the Free Republic.