NationStates Jolt Archive

First off, let's get some basic understanding of this issue. For starters, Bush has never admitted that he doesn't have the authority to get around the FISA court the way he has, and we have to assume that the warrantless wiretapping continues--there certainly hasn't been any statement that the program has been suspended or ended as of yet.

The Bush administration's argument, echoed by their pals in the media and in the blogosphere is essentially this--if it involves national security, or if it happens in a time of war, then the President can do whatever the hell he wants and there's fuck-all Congress or the courts can do to stop him. (Admittedly, that's a little cruder than they actually put it, but that's the gist of it.) This is the epitome of the imperial presidency, especially since the current "war" we're in is a war on a tactic (terror) with no stated enemies and no way of knowing if we've won.

If we take this to the logical extreme, the President could claim--and I emphasize the could here--that in the interests of national security, he would be allowed to personally pop a cap on anyone he wishes and never be held accountable for it. If we back away from that extreme just a bit, one could argue that it doesn't matter if the PATRIOT Act is renewed, because the President can authorize everything in it and more via Executive Order under his powers as Commander in Chief. Why shouldn't he? He's already gone around one court, a court, I might add, that bent over backwards to accomodate prosecutors when it came to probable cause in approving wiretaps.

Hell, there's reason to believe he ignored his own Justice department (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663996/site/newsweek/) in 2004. On one day in the spring of 2004, White House chief of staff Andy Card and the then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales made a bedside visit to John Ashcroft, attorney general at the time, who was stricken with a rare and painful pancreatic disease, to try—without success—to get him to reverse his deputy, Acting Attorney General James Comey, who was balking at the warrantless eavesdropping. When you've gone so far around the bend that you can't get John Ashcroft to sign off on a program, you know you've fucked up.

And yet he apparently hasn't stopped the program. For all we know it continues to this day, even though several Senators in his own party are calling for hearings into the matter, even though constitutional scholars from the right, the left, and the libertarians are saying this is crap (one libertarian site has taken to calling Bush "King George"). Fuck, when Bob Barr and William Safire are calling you out--and they're as big of apologists for the right-wing as exist in this world, something is wrong.

They're scared--that's what it is. They may not be scared of what Bush will do if he's left unchecked, or even what he may have already done--after all, there's no oversight on this. Only the NSA and the administration knows who's been wiretapped. They say that they've only been tapping people involved with al Qaeda, but hey, the truth and these guys don't pass in the hallways very often of late. I'll tell you what the right-wingers who are piling on are scared of.

President Hillary Clinton. Or any other Democrat in the White House with similar power.

The thought that this power could be turned on them gives them douche chills, and it ought to, because no one person in a democracy should ever have that kind of power. Not even if I like them and trust them. That kind of power is dangerous, and no one should wield it, especially not George W. Bush.

But he's got it, as long as no one forces his hand. That's the scariest part of this whole story.

Hillary is too polarizing to win an election, and she's been courting the center a bit too much lately; the flag-burning thing was something of an odd step to take for a supposed Democratic presidential hopeful. If the Democrats are smart she won't even earn the nomination, but then again I've never credited the Democrats with an overabundance of brains. If the Democrats want to win in '08 [which might be a bit harder than some might think if the GOP plays its cards right], they'll go with someone like Mark Warner.

The Democrats have done several damaging things to their chances; most notably Hillary's baffling flag burning platform and the Senate's trade-off on winning a Patriot Act extension in exchange for voting down Arctic oil drilling. They've basically told us, in the last few years, that one of their goals is to reduce American energy dependency--while turning around and banning access to the only possible oil reserves that could make that a possibility--all the while implying that our personal freedoms are as important or even less important than whether or not we open up drilling in these areas: I was pretty insulted by that. Like almost every other politician we elected last century [and so far this one], these clueless automatons want to have their cake and eat it too. Any sensible person on either side of the aisle should be fed up with both parties, but I'll admit [for once] that the Republicans deserve the greater share of scorn.

That said, I think the wider implications of Bush's War on Reason are going to blow over when he leaves office in '08: I can't imagine anyone would be thrilled with the idea of perpetuating his policies, given recent opinion polls. I am surprised, however, that you neglected to point out [although perhaps you did so elsewhere] that one of Bush's major lynchpins for defending the Patriot Act was that searches and other monitoring policies still required a warrant: something which he has admitted quite recently isn't exactly the case and probably never was.

The question that I have is this:

If the NSA can tap a phone for up to 72 hours BEFORE a warrant is issued, then what possible conditions could exist that would demand a warrantless wiretap?

The need to act quickly? How much quicker can you get? The NSA can tap any phone they want NOW and get a warrant in 3 days!

The only situation that could exist is if even the FISA court would not issue a warrant at all. Considering the ease in getting those warrants, one has to wonder exactly how farfetched these questionable wiretaps are to fail to meet THAT standard! Even then, the 72 hour window would also have to be insufficient(Because, let's face it; I seriously doubt the NSA tosses useful surveilance just because they didn't get the wrrant approved. :p )

So how on Earth can ANYBODY even the President of the United States justify tapping the phones of American Citizens who don't meet the minimum standards of suspicion to get a warrant?

My head hurts. :(

I'll tell you what the right-wingers who are piling on are scared of.

President Hillary Clinton. Or any other Democrat in the White House with similar power.

The only people scared of that are the Vince Fosters and Paula Jones of the world. We all know the only time a clinton would do something like that is to settle a score.

Hillary is too polarizing to win an election, and she's been courting the center a bit too much lately; the flag-burning thing was something of an odd step to take for a supposed Democratic presidential hopeful. If the Democrats are smart she won't even earn the nomination, but then again I've never credited the Democrats with an overabundance of brains. If the Democrats want to win in '08 [which might be a bit harder than some might think if the GOP plays its cards right], they'll go with someone like Mark Warner.
I don't for a moment think Hillary will get the nod in 2008--she's got name recognition and little else, for reasons you most aptly stated. Warner, on the other hand, is an intriguing candidate, and someone I'll have my eyes on, although for now, I like Feingold.

The Democrats have done several damaging things to their chances; most notably Hillary's baffling flag burning platform and the Senate's trade-off on winning a Patriot Act extension in exchange for voting down Arctic oil drilling. They've basically told us, in the last few years, that one of their goals is to reduce American energy dependency--while turning around and banning access to the only possible oil reserves that could make that a possibility--all the while implying that our personal freedoms are as important or even less important than whether or not we open up drilling in these areas: I was pretty insulted by that. Like almost every other politician we elected last century [and so far this one], these clueless automatons want to have their cake and eat it too. Any sensible person on either side of the aisle should be fed up with both parties, but I'll admit [for once] that the Republicans deserve the greater share of scorn.You're overstating the usefulness of the ANWR reserves, but Hillary's flag-burning move and the video game legislation are both baffling, not to mention that, as far as the activists in the Democratic party are concerned, she's on the wrong side of the Iraq war issue.

That said, I think the wider implications of Bush's War on Reason are going to blow over when he leaves office in '08: I can't imagine anyone would be thrilled with the idea of perpetuating his policies, given recent opinion polls. I am surprised, however, that you neglected to point out [although perhaps you did so elsewhere] that one of Bush's major lynchpins for defending the Patriot Act was that searches and other monitoring policies still required a warrant: something which he has admitted quite recently isn't exactly the case and probably never was.
Yeah, I meant to mention that in my little piece above, but it got lost in the shuffle--it's one of the many contradictions that abound in this discussion. Did Bush mean it when he defended the PATRIOT Act? For that matter, does he even know what he's talking about when he defends either his current program or what came before? Or is he just reciting whatever the microphone in his ear tells him to say?

The overall thrust of my piece above, however, was basically that if there's something that's going to cause the Safires of the world to abandon ship, it would be the threat of their favorite bogeyman (or woman, in this case) in office and having that kind of power. The far right-wing acts like Hillary is, well, some call her Hitlery, after all, and think she'd start a pogrom of conservatives if she got into power. If I can use that irrational fear to help stop a program like this one, I'll do it.

The thing is these are international calls going to outbound lines. They are from suspected terrorist. I have no problem with this. If a fellow citizen is making dozens of calls to Osama's sat phone then I want to know why. As said over and over in previous posts on this subject. This is not illegal.


My head hurts. :(

Yes mine too. Especially when people keep trying to beat this dead horse again and again and etc....

The thing is these are international calls going to outbound lines. They are from suspected terrorist. I have no problem with this. If a fellow citizen is making dozens of calls to Osama's sat phone then I want to know why. As said over and over in previous posts on this subject. This is not illegal.



Yes mine too. Especially when people keep trying to beat this dead horse again and again and etc....
Because all the left of America has is dead horses to beat to a pulp. They have nothing real to attack the administration and the soldiers with, so they trot out shit like this and Cindy Sheehan and beat them until they are unrecognizable.

The thing is these are international calls going to outbound lines. They are from suspected terrorist. I have no problem with this. If a fellow citizen is making dozens of calls to Osama's sat phone then I want to know why. As said over and over in previous posts on this subject. This is not illegal.
How do you know that's the only people being listened in on? Because Bush says so? Is that really enough for you? Because if it is, it's just sad.

First off, let's get some basic understanding of this issue. For starters, Bush has never admitted that he doesn't have the authority to get around the FISA court the way he has, and we have to assume that the warrantless wiretapping continues--there certainly hasn't been any statement that the program has been suspended or ended as of yet.
Given that the wiretapping this particular program consists of involves NSA computer intercepts within the United States, I don't think you quite realize the order of magnitude of how many warrants would have to be procured. The NSA program gets millions of intercepted communications per day that are flagged by its programs. Somehow I seriously doubt the FISA court is set up to sift through and process that information within 3 days.

(sorry, i quoted the wrong person the first time around)
The thing is these are international calls going to outbound lines. They are from suspected terrorist. I have no problem with this. If a fellow citizen is making dozens of calls to Osama's sat phone then I want to know why. As said over and over in previous posts on this subject. This is not illegal.



Yes mine too. Especially when people keep trying to beat this dead horse again and again and etc....

but what if im just trying to have phone sex with him?

How do you know that's the only people being listened in on? Because Bush says so? Is that really enough for you? Because if it is, it's just sad.


BTW how do you really know what anyone is doing with your private information? You don't and you couldn't possibly find out. So why keep making a big deal about nothing. Nothing will come of this whole thing.

Given that the wiretapping this particular program consists of involves NSA computer intercepts within the United States, I don't think you quite realize the order of magnitude of how many warrants would have to be procured. The NSA program gets millions of intercepted communications per day that are flagged by its programs. Somehow I seriously doubt the FISA court is set up to sift through and process that information within 3 days.
So what you're saying is that because it would be difficult to do legally, it's okay to do it illegally? Just making sure. Because I don't recall that provision being written into the FISA statute.

(sorry, i quoted the wrong person the first time around)


but what if im just trying to have phone sex with him?

Well just keep him interested long enough that we can get cordinates for that cruise missle with his name on it. ;)

I find it perfectly reasonable for any calls to be monitered that are between anyone and a known terrorist. Whether that person is a person in the Middle East, in Europe, in Asia, and yes, even the United States. Now while I would prefer the warrant method be used, skipping over it when you know a person has been in contact with a terrorist seems reasonable to me. And before anyone whips out the Ben Franklin quote, don't. That is just annoying.

And before anyone whips out the Ben Franklin quote, don't. That is just annoying.

I don't know what Ol' BJ Franklin said, but I personally feel that those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for temporary security don't deserve either--just a kick in the pants.

But you know....thats just me.

:cool:

The thing is these are international calls going to outbound lines. They are from suspected terrorist. I have no problem with this. If a fellow citizen is making dozens of calls to Osama's sat phone then I want to know why. As said over and over in previous posts on this subject. This is not illegal.

you are a FUCKING MORON!!

It is not just international calls going to outbound lines. You need no warrent for those. If it was from suspected terrorists, why not get a warrent? Why do it ILLIGALY?

I find it perfectly reasonable for any calls to be monitered that are between anyone and a known terrorist.

But that's not all who's being monitered. That's what you in the "I'm ganna automatically disagree with anything that comes from the "left"" crowd don't seem to be able to wrap your heads around.

Also, the simple fact that the president is not above the law trumps any bullshit chicken little cries of "terrorist" you like to throw around.


We have laws for a reason. I can't just decide I don't want to stop at a red light, or that I want something so I steal it. If the wire taps aer legit, they can very easily get them through legal means without trouble.


Also, it goes against everything America is supposed to stand for.


You are much much more likely to be killed or damaged by the government then by any stateless "terrorist" group.

Hey mods!

Sorry to post here like this, but please don't lock it. Just delete Katzistanza's post, which is clearly inflammatory and let the rest of us continue to discuss this in a normal and rational manner.

Thank you.

Now, for my input...

The thing is these are international calls going to outbound lines. They are from suspected terrorist.
Oh, they must be! :rolleyes: How silly of us to expect them not to be. After all, anyone who flew in from the MidEast has got to have some kind of connection to terrorism, don't they? </sarcasm>

Sorry, I really couldn't resist. :p
I have no problem with this.
Nice to know you're open-minded about immigration... :D
If a fellow citizen is making dozens of calls to Osama's sat phone then I want to know why.
Ever stop to think that it isn't JUST about ways to blow up the president's travelling circus of freaks. They have other plans... you know, like... how to make alcohol legal for Muslims, even though the Qu'ran explicitly forbids it.

Then again, I could be wrong. ;)
As said over and over in previous posts on this subject. This is not illegal.
I find that rather 'unAmerican'... Sorry. ^^;

First off, this post is to apologize for my last post. I was having a really really bad night, and I was way out of line. Sorry. Especially to Marrakech II.

Revised post:

The thing is these are international calls going to outbound lines. They are from suspected terrorist. I have no problem with this. If a fellow citizen is making dozens of calls to Osama's sat phone then I want to know why. As said over and over in previous posts on this subject. This is not illegal.

It is not just international calls going to outbound lines. You need no warrent for those. The reason folk are so mad is because it's domestic calls that are being spyed on. If you are only taping suspected terrorists, why not just get a warrent? Why do it ILLIGALY?

I find it perfectly reasonable for any calls to be monitered that are between anyone and a known terrorist.

But that's not all who's being monitered. That's what you in the "I'm ganna automatically disagree with anything that comes from the "left"" crowd don't seem to be able to wrap your heads around.

Also, the simple fact that the president is not above the law trumps any chicken little cries of "terrorist" folk like to throw around.


We have laws for a reason. I can't just decide I don't want to stop at a red light, or that I want something so I steal it. If the wire taps aer legit, they can very easily get them through legal means without trouble.


Also, it goes against everything America is supposed to stand for.


You are much much more likely to be killed or damaged by the government then by any stateless "terrorist" group. So pardon me if I distrust a group of people with lots of guns and power over my dayly life having absolutly no oversite, accountiility, or rules of conduct. I think it's a valid concern.

You are much much more likely to be killed or damaged by the government then by any stateless "terrorist" group.
You know how I like to think of it. There is either a 0% chance that a terrorist will kill me, or a 100% chance that a terrorist will kill me, and I just don't know which. However, I think there is a higher chance that there is a 100% chance of a terrorist killing me than there is the chance that there is a 100% chance on the government killing me.
:D

Oh, and because I am not really familiar with the Constituion/Bill of Rights, can someone point out to me where in there we get the Right to Privacy. Thanks

You know how I like to think of it. There is either a 0% chance that a terrorist will kill me, or a 100% chance that a terrorist will kill me, and I just don't know which. However, I think there is a higher chance that there is a 100% chance of a terrorist killing me than there is the chance that there is a 100% chance on the government killing me.
:D

That makes absolutly no sence. Are you saying that either a terrorist will kill you or will not? That is entirly true about anything. So while a true statement, it means nothing. Watch, I'll do it:

"Either I will die in a car crash or I will not"
"Either I will go to the store tomarrow or I will not"
"Either I will make my self a sandwhich, or I will not"
"Either I will be shot, or I will not"

See how that really doesn't mean anything?


Or do you mean that if a terrorist exists, he will kill you? If so, you are wrong, because many terrorists exist, and have not killed you.


By the by, I did make my self a sandwhich, and it was delicious and filling. If you'd like, I can mail sandwhiches to you all to make up for my earlyer losing of cool. :)

BTW how do you really know what anyone is doing with your private information? You don't and you couldn't possibly find out. So why keep making a big deal about nothing. Nothing will come of this whole thing.

You just handed spam centers the perfect excuse. You don't know whose collecting your information for spamming, unless you're really paranoid and run multiple protection systems to beat hit and run spamming.

Besides, I find it funny how all you people think that terrorists have publicly listed telephone numbers and can trace which number goes to who when done overseas.

*looks up yellow pages*

Nope, can't find Bin Laden's name here. The only way to actually catch people using this method is if they troll just about every outgoing call, and possibly ingoing as well on the off chance that they'll get one fish. In the meantime, they've most likely got some several hundred hours of conversations that have no terrorist links on record.

The little smiley at the end of that post was meant to signify that my post was ridiculous. It even contradicted itself. It said that I only believe that there is a 0% or 100% chance of something, but then in the next sentence I talk about higher and lower chances. But, I would gladly accept a sandwich.

First off, this post is to apologize for my last post. I was having a really really bad night, and I was way out of line. Sorry. Especially to Marrakech II.
The right thing to do would be to delete the offending post.

Oh, and because I am not really familiar with the Constituion/Bill of Rights, can someone point out to me where in there we get the Right to Privacy. Thanks

in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments, for one. from the constitutionally recognized tradition of common law for another.

The Bush administration's argument, echoed by their pals in the media and in the blogosphere is essentially this--if it involves national security, or if it happens in a time of war, then the President can do whatever the hell he wants and there's fuck-all Congress or the courts can do to stop him. (Admittedly, that's a little cruder than they actually put it, but that's the gist of it.) This is the epitome of the imperial presidency, especially since the current "war" we're in is a war on a tactic (terror) with no stated enemies and no way of knowing if we've won.

it's also worth noting that this essentially means that we've just witnessed a military coup. the president has declared that as the commander-in-chief of the military, he can do anything he please - the rule of law has been suspended (and not just for foreigners anymore).

Okay, a point here that none of the Bush butt kissers seem to think about:

1: Bush apologists say that the wire taps are only being conducted on known or suspected terrorists within the country.

2: Bush apologists say there are simply too many lines to tap to make getting warrants feasable, even with a 72 hour grace period after thefact.

Conclusion: WTF has the Bush administration bee doing if THAT MANY KNOW AND SUSPECTED TERRORISTS are running free INSIDE THE COUNTRY?

Basically, Bush is saying that his collossal failure is what necessitates him acting illegally.

So, if you believe Bush's talking points, then you have to accept the fact that he's an incompetent boob who has allowed the country to be overrun by our enemy.

If this is an ability the President needs, then get legislation to do it, complete with some kind of oversight, BECAUSE I'LL BE DAMNED IF I'LL ALLOW the government to spy on it's people with no one looking over it's shoulder.

in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments, for one. from the constitutionally recognized tradition of common law for another.

Silly Free Soviets. Don't you know that the only way to read the Constitution is to narrowly define all all the Amendments except the 2nd Amendment? :rolleyes:

Notice to conservatives: The other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights are as much about protecting us from the government itself as the 2nd amendment is. We weaken them at our own peril.

So, if you believe Bush's talking points, then you have to accept the fact that he's an incompetent boob who has allowed the country to be overrun by our enemy.

actually, i think that's mainly his over-eager supporters running a little ahead of the game. the official line appears to be that the prez just can do whatever he likes, and any restrictions (like those written into FISA, for example) just don't apply to him if he so decides.

actually, i think that's mainly his over-eager supporters running a little ahead of the game. the official line appears to be that the prez just can do whatever he likes, and any restrictions (like those written into FISA, for example) just don't apply to him if he so decides.
It's the whole "in the interests of national security" argument. As Melkor noted on the front page, if the President can do whatever the hell he wants in the interests of national security, why do we need the PATRIOT Act in the first place? Why do we need FISA? To extend the argument, if the President derives that authority from the Commander in Chief clause, then isn't any legislation that diminishes that authority unconstitutional? Of course it isn't, and that's what makes his overall argument ludicrous.

The question that I have is this:

If the NSA can tap a phone for up to 72 hours BEFORE a warrant is issued, then what possible conditions could exist that would demand a warrantless wiretap?

The need to act quickly? How much quicker can you get? The NSA can tap any phone they want NOW and get a warrant in 3 days!

The only situation that could exist is if even the FISA court would not issue a warrant at all. Considering the ease in getting those warrants, one has to wonder exactly how farfetched these questionable wiretaps are to fail to meet THAT standard! Even then, the 72 hour window would also have to be insufficient(Because, let's face it; I seriously doubt the NSA tosses useful surveilance just because they didn't get the wrrant approved. :p )

So how on Earth can ANYBODY even the President of the United States justify tapping the phones of American Citizens who don't meet the minimum standards of suspicion to get a warrant?

My head hurts. :(
Just to toss a little more gas on this fire: according to Senator Joe Biden, (who, despite being a shrill, yappy, little ratdog, is a Senator and helped write the relevant legislation), because there is a war on (thanks to Bush), the president actually has 15 days to get a retroactive surveillance warrant from the FISA Court.

That's 15 DAYS that he can monitor phones within the US BEFORE he has to decide whether there's any good information there and, then get a warrant to let him use that info legally.

Yeah, that is a huge burden on the government, unfairly tying the president's hands and thus ensuring the horrible doom of every American somehow, someday. :rolleyes:

If this is an ability the President needs, then get legislation to do it, complete with some kind of oversight, BECAUSE I'LL BE DAMNED IF I'LL ALLOW the government to spy on it's people with no one looking over it's shoulder.

Got news for you, they've been doing it for decades, and will do it for decades more. You fight it the best you can, but you gatta accept that the best you can do it try to protect you and yours.

I'd recomend some book titles, but the CIA is probably listening.

IIRC, the FISA court was being very difficult towards the Bush Administration, which resulted in Bush going around the court.

The objection was to the general nature of the "taps" which were not "wiretaps" in the old "hook this wire to some individual phone", but a blanket sweep using data mining techniques across thousands of transmissions.

Ideas like probable cause and warrants are difficult, if not impossible, to adapt to data mining and blanket surveillance. But, in modern terms, this is the only way to identify who is talking to whom - the only way to do traffic analysis - and in the end, the only way to identify people who you would like to get a warrant to tap continuously.

So, how would you provide for warrants for blanket surveillance and data mining? Or would you not? And if not, what other method would you use that would yield information on who in the US is talking to foreign agents?

Just to toss a little more gas on this fire: according to Senator Joe Biden, (who, despite being a shrill, yappy, little ratdog, is a Senator and helped write the relevant legislation), because there is a war on (thanks to Bush), the president actually has 15 days to get a retroactive surveillance warrant from the FISA Court.
There was no war as declared by Congress. Clause is irrelevant.

§ 1811. Authorization during time of war
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

With the easy and retroactive approval that the FISA court will give for wiretapping, I really want to hear what justification there could be for bypassing it. Have they ever been a security problem in the past? I doubt it.

Unfortunately, it doubtful that we will ever get to hear these arguments, but I'd love to at least see a reporter ask about it at a press conference. Maybe we can all write letters to Helen Thomas and ask her to do it.

Since FISA was introduced, over 16,200 warrants were requested. Of those 16,200 warrents, 4 of them were denied. They have 3 days of lee-way for National Security reasons. What Bush did was not only unconstitutional, it was downright criminal.

There was no war as declared by Congress. Clause is irrelevant.

§ 1811. Authorization during time of war
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

That clause only applies to foreign intelligence, not domestic. These people Bush has been wiretapping have been, by a large majority, American citizens with no connections to countries that war has been declared on. And even so, these actions have gone on past the 15 day retroactive limit.

That clause only applies to foreign intelligence, not domestic. These people Bush has been wiretapping have been, by a large majority, American citizens with no connections to countries that war has been declared on. And even so, these actions have gone on past the 15 day retroactive limit.
They are acquiring so-called foreign intelligence.

Okay, a point here that none of the Bush butt kissers seem to think about:

1: Bush apologists say that the wire taps are only being conducted on known or suspected terrorists within the country.

2: Bush apologists say there are simply too many lines to tap to make getting warrants feasable, even with a 72 hour grace period after thefact.

Conclusion: WTF has the Bush administration bee doing if THAT MANY KNOW AND SUSPECTED TERRORISTS are running free INSIDE THE COUNTRY?

Basically, Bush is saying that his collossal failure is what necessitates him acting illegally.

So, if you believe Bush's talking points, then you have to accept the fact that he's an incompetent boob who has allowed the country to be overrun by our enemy.

If this is an ability the President needs, then get legislation to do it, complete with some kind of oversight, BECAUSE I'LL BE DAMNED IF I'LL ALLOW the government to spy on it's people with no one looking over it's shoulder.
Nice points. They may not be 100% accurate, but I like them anyway. :D

The fact is the USA probably is crawling with terrorists due to many years of lax immigration and visa enforcement, which is not Bush's fault (dammit -- I hate not being able to blame him for something :p ). So there is a good argument to be made for domestic surveillance.

However, there is NO argument to be made for allowing the president to break the law -- ever, under any circumstances, no way, forget it. I will not accept any argument otherwise, and apparently, neither will the people whose opinions matter (the rest of the government, for instance) since Bush's talking points are shifting from "we had to do it this way" to "the law lets us do it this way." Yeah, uh-huh, we'll see about that.

The fact is, modern tech blurs the line between public and private. I think I can argue for an expectation of privacy in anything that is password protected, but on the other hand, when I go to Amazon from my computer at work, I am greeted by name even without logging in. Cell phone conversations get accidentally picked up on other phones all the time. Our faces and movements are accidentally and incidentally recorded by private security cameras everywhere we go. We live much of our lives in public view, and it doesn't really affect the freedom we have to do things.

But when we erase the line between public and private all together, then we are in trouble. That's when we suddenly find that we can't get a job, or get on a plane, or get a bank loan or a lease, and it takes months to find out that our identity has been stolen, or our name is similar to a terrorist's and has been put on a watchlist, or our HMO is improperly using our medical records, etc. And it takes more months, sometimes years to undo this damage, if it ever can be undone.

The problem is not with surveillance per se. The problem is with secret surveillance for which there are no written authorizations, no accessible records, no way to prove what was done, by whom, how our info was used, and whether or not we've been harmed by it -- in other words, no way to protect the rights this country was founded on.

If the surveillance is warranted, if there is a judicial paper trail about it, and if the existence of the program itself is acknowledged publicly, then American citizens should be able to protect themselves if they get unfairly caught up in a terror investigation, or if information is illegally used against them. Security and law enforcement techniques are generally public information, yet criminals and spies still get caught using those techniques. I fail to see how informing the public undermines security. But I see very clearly how it undermines liberty.

Nice points. They may not be 100% accurate, but I like them anyway. :D

The fact is the USA probably is crawling with terrorists due to many years of lax immigration and visa enforcement, which is not Bush's fault (dammit -- I hate not being able to blame him for something :p ). So there is a good argument to be made for domestic surveillance.

However, there is NO argument to be made for allowing the president to break the law -- ever, under any circumstances, no way, forget it. I will not accept any argument otherwise, and apparently, neither will the people whose opinions matter (the rest of the government, for instance) since Bush's talking points are shifting from "we had to do it this way" to "the law lets us do it this way." Yeah, uh-huh, we'll see about that.

The fact is, modern tech blurs the line between public and private. I think I can argue for an expectation of privacy in anything that is password protected, but on the other hand, when I go to Amazon from my computer at work, I am greeted by name even without logging in. Cell phone conversations get accidentally picked up on other phones all the time. Our faces and movements are accidentally and incidentally recorded by private security cameras everywhere we go. We live much of our lives in public view, and it doesn't really affect the freedom we have to do things.

But when we erase the line between public and private all together, then we are in trouble. That's when we suddenly find that we can't get a job, or get on a plane, or get a bank loan or a lease, and it takes months to find out that our identity has been stolen, or our name is similar to a terrorist's and has been put on a watchlist, or our HMO is improperly using our medical records, etc. And it takes more months, sometimes years to undo this damage, if it ever can be undone.

The problem is not with surveillance per se. The problem is with secret surveillance for which there are no written authorizations, no accessible records, no way to prove what was done, by whom, how our info was used, and whether or not we've been harmed by it -- in other words, no way to protect the rights this country was founded on.

If the surveillance is warranted, if there is a judicial paper trail about it, and if the existence of the program itself is acknowledged publicly, then American citizens should be able to protect themselves if they get unfairly caught up in a terror investigation, or if information is illegally used against them. Security and law enforcement techniques are generally public information, yet criminals and spies still get caught using those techniques. I fail to see how informing the public undermines security. But I see very clearly how it undermines liberty.


The problem is that data mining requires surveillance of thousands, if not millions, of messages at once - you can't get a warrant to do it under conventional definitions of "probable cause". Ever.

But it's probably the most useful way to arrive at identifying the individuals that you are interested in finally tapping.

There was no war as declared by Congress. Clause is irrelevant.

§ 1811. Authorization during time of war
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.
HAHAHAHA! When the president wants to go to war, then he doesn't need a declaration by Congress, but when we want to make him follow rules then we can't do it without a declaration by Congress? Oh, that's rich! He and you can't have it both ways. Either we're at war or we're not, and since Bush keeps saying we're at war, and that being at war gives him all kinds of special powers, then I say the war-time 15-day FISA rule applies, and he has no excuse not to apply for FISA warrants.

The fact is the USA probably is crawling with terrorists due to many years of lax immigration and visa enforcement, which is not Bush's fault (dammit -- I hate not being able to blame him for something :p ). So there is a good argument to be made for domestic surveillance.


No, it's not. It's very easy to make a bomb. I've made several, and I have never studied chemistry in my life. I've also been told it's extremely easy to get weapons in the US. Since there has been no terrorist bombings or shootings in the last few years we can either conclude that there are very few terrorists in the US, or terrorists are extremely lazy.

On top of that, terrorists prefer to be fully legal when they are in their country of choice.

IIRC, the FISA court was being very difficult towards the Bush Administration, which resulted in Bush going around the court.

The objection was to the general nature of the "taps" which were not "wiretaps" in the old "hook this wire to some individual phone", but a blanket sweep using data mining techniques across thousands of transmissions.

Ideas like probable cause and warrants are difficult, if not impossible, to adapt to data mining and blanket surveillance. But, in modern terms, this is the only way to identify who is talking to whom - the only way to do traffic analysis - and in the end, the only way to identify people who you would like to get a warrant to tap continuously.

So, how would you provide for warrants for blanket surveillance and data mining? Or would you not? And if not, what other method would you use that would yield information on who in the US is talking to foreign agents?
You don't recall correctly, but hey, the truth has never stopped you from being a fucking apologist before, so why should it stop you now? And if issues like data mining and blanket surveillance are difficult to adapt to the current law, then there's a solution--go to Congress and get them to change the law. Don't break existing law just because the circumstances have changed on you.

If it's illegal, where are the indictments? Grand jury?

HAHAHAHA! When the president wants to go to war, then he doesn't need a declaration by Congress, but when we want to make him follow rules then we can't do it without a declaration by Congress?
What the fuck are you arguing? That is what is written into the fucking law. Stop being a partisan asshat.

and since Bush keeps saying we're at war, and that being at war gives him all kinds of special powers, then I say the war-time 15-day FISA rule applies, and he has no excuse not to apply for FISA warrants.
Second verse same as the first.

What the fuck are you arguing? That is what is written into the fucking law. Stop being a partisan asshat.

Second verse same as the first.

Well, the law doesn't seem to have been written to cover modern times. After a few tries, it looks like Bush never went back (so they couldn't continue to reject).

One might well wonder what enforcement that FISA has. Apparently, there is none.

If it's illegal, where are the indictments? Grand jury?
Hopefully on its way if law has been broken

But of course if they loose it will be because of those damn activist judges

Well, the law doesn't seem to have been written to cover modern times.
Ooh, even lamer than the other person's excuse. And theirs was terrible.

IIRC, the FISA court was being very difficult towards the Bush Administration, which resulted in Bush going around the court.

The objection was to the general nature of the "taps" which were not "wiretaps" in the old "hook this wire to some individual phone", but a blanket sweep using data mining techniques across thousands of transmissions.

Ideas like probable cause and warrants are difficult, if not impossible, to adapt to data mining and blanket surveillance. But, in modern terms, this is the only way to identify who is talking to whom - the only way to do traffic analysis - and in the end, the only way to identify people who you would like to get a warrant to tap continuously.

So, how would you provide for warrants for blanket surveillance and data mining? Or would you not? And if not, what other method would you use that would yield information on who in the US is talking to foreign agents?
It's pointless for us to argue here about the technical issues of how to do wireless phone tapping. We don't how it's done, but I'm sure the people in charge of doing it and the courts that authorize them do know.

So the useful point in your post is the bolded statement, and the problem with this is that it is simply not a legitimate argument to say that, if the rules of the game don't let you do something, your only option is to break the rules. I mean, that's a ridiculous stance. Sorry, but, really.

I think, since its creation, the FISA Court has rejected fewer than 10 out of about 20,000 warrant applications, UNTIL Bush came along. During the Bush administration alone, the FISA court has amended or rejected about 200 applications out of several thousand (I think in the range of 5000). I have so far not heard a single legal authority who does not believe that this means there is something wrong with Bush's applications.

So you argue that Bush should be allowed to continue doing it wrong? He should not be required to do it right, even though all the other presidents under FISA did do it right enough to get their warrants?

Sorry, DK, but I am not willing to toss the rule of law out the window just so Bush can act like an incompetent dictator.

Ooh, even lamer than the other person's excuse. And theirs was terrible.
It's not lame.

They wanted to do blanket sweeps of transmission traffic. There's no way you could ever get a warrant for that (and to the comment that you could pass a law to allow it doesn't fly - the Constitution wouldn't allow it).

So, if you want to use data mining, traffic analysis, etc, as you normally do to foreign traffic, you'll NEVER get a warrant for it.

So it looks like Bush just went ahead, stopped asking the court, and did it.

Kimchi, in context, it is up to date with current times. It was created after the Vietnam War. A war without a declaration of war by Congress.

There's no way you could ever get a warrant for that (and to the comment that you could pass a law to allow it doesn't fly - the Constitution wouldn't allow it).

You arn't even trying. So, you sit there and say what he is doing is inherently unConstitutional, which thus makes it ok.

Are you even reading what you are writing?

So, if you want to use data mining, traffic analysis, etc, as you normally do to foreign traffic, you'll NEVER get a warrant for it.
Forget that the court he had to go to never turned down a warrant request all of 2004.

Kimchi, in context, it is up to date with current times. It was created after the Vietnam War. A war without a declaration of war by Congress.
It doesn't cover blanket surveillance - or traffic analysis. To do that you have to tap an entire cable or network. And you analyze ALL of it or a major subset.

Not an individual's traffic until you do the data mining.

And until then, you DON'T and NEVER WILL have probable cause for each individual's traffic - so you'll NEVER get a warrant for it.

It's not lame.

They wanted to do blanket sweeps of transmission traffic. There's no way you could ever get a warrant for that (and to the comment that you could pass a law to allow it doesn't fly - the Constitution wouldn't allow it).

So, if you want to use data mining, traffic analysis, etc, as you normally do to foreign traffic, you'll NEVER get a warrant for it.

So it looks like Bush just went ahead, stopped asking the court, and did it.
So are you admitting that the actions Bush took are unconstitutional? And yet defending them? What the fuck, man?

If it's illegal, where are the indictments? Grand jury?

So if there aren't any indictments, it's legal? There has been a massive movement for impeachment for months if not years, and with crossing this final line, it may get the support from Republicans it needs to get the moron out of office. Hopefully the brains of the operation will get outed too.

And until then, you DON'T and NEVER WILL have probable cause for each individual's traffic - so you'll NEVER get a warrant for it.
Bullshit.

What the fuck are you arguing? That is what is written into the fucking law. Stop being a partisan asshat.


Second verse same as the first.
Name calling is a sign of weakness. So is denunciation of an argument without explanation.

Or maybe you just failed to get my point. It's that Bush can't claim he doesn't need a declaration of war to take action, but then claim that the rest of us do need a declaration of war to hold him accountable for those actions. All he's doing is trying to squirm out of legal responsibiliy, and all you're doing is trying to squirm out of an argument that you can't win.

Ooh, even lamer than the other person's excuse. And theirs was terrible.
:D You're so hostile, you don't even know when a guy is agreeing with you. Try to chill. :D

So are you admitting that the actions Bush took are unconstitutional? And yet defending them? What the fuck, man?

I think you're making the common mistake that you and others usually make, that I care one way or the other as vehemently as you do about what nations or leaders do.

I usually try to look at these things without passing judgment on whether they are right or wrong, or morally good or bad.

Bullshit.

Incorrect. To randomly spy on thousands of people breaches the principle of innocent before being proven guilty.

So if there aren't any indictments, it's legal? There has been a massive movement for impeachment for months if not years, and with crossing this final line, it may get the support from Republicans it needs to get the moron out of office. Hopefully the brains of the operation will get outed too.

I believe that we had a previous President who said, "I have done nothing illegal", which most of us took to mean, "I only care if I get indicted - whether something is morally right or wrong is specious and irrelevant."

Thus, my statement. For Presidents, if you're not impeached over it, you're getting away with it.

It's that Bush can't claim he doesn't need a declaration of war to take action, but then claim that the rest of us do need a declaration of war to hold him accountable for those actions. All he's doing is trying to squirm out of legal responsibiliy, and all you're doing is trying to squirm out of an argument that you can't win.
He, you, nor anyone else can say it is ok for him invoke the war powers section of FISA because it specifically says "declaration of war by Congress." That is the end of the debate unless you can pretend you can argue with the written out letter of the law.

I believe that we had a previous President who said, "I have done nothing illegal", which most of us took to mean, "I only care if I get indicted - whether something is morally right or wrong is specious and irrelevant."

Thus, my statement. For Presidents, if you're not impeached over it, you're getting away with it.

I get away with smoking weed all the time. Doesn't mean that it's legal.

Incorrect. To randomly spy on thousands of people breaches the principle of innocent before being proven guilty.
No, the fact that he said it would be impossible to get a warrant for an individual person is the bullshit.

BUSH SUCKS ;) :headbang:

I think you're making the common mistake that you and others usually make, that I care one way or the other as vehemently as you do about what nations or leaders do.

I usually try to look at these things without passing judgment on whether they are right or wrong, or morally good or bad.
You know, I kind of don't believe you fully on this one. You write awfully pasionately when you argue with me about Bush. Why is that, if you're so dispassionate about Bush and goverments in general? Is it that you're passionate about me? :cool: ;)

I think you're making the common mistake that you and others usually make, that I care one way or the other as vehemently as you do about what nations or leaders do.

I usually try to look at these things without passing judgment on whether they are right or wrong, or morally good or bad.
Ah, so you don't care that under this logic, the President--no matter which party--can declare that he or she has unlimited power simply because of the Commander in Chief status. Don't ever, ever talk about your patriotism again, because it's obvious that you don't give a shit for this system of government or the constitution on which it is based. People like you are a greater threat to the US than any outside threat could ever hope to be.

I usually try to look at these things without passing judgment on whether they are right or wrong, or morally good or bad.
Law is not a judge of morality. You are saying because something is so illegal that it is against the highest law in the land then it is ok to do.

No, the fact that he said it would be impossible to get a warrant for an individual person is the bullshit.
No, I'm saying that you could never get the warrant for blanket surveillance of millions of transmissions. Go back and read my posts.

Law is not a judge of morality. You are saying because something is so illegal that it is against the highest law in the land then it is ok to do.
I know that it's not a judge of morality. But President Clinton said explicitly, "I have done nothing illegal" and he was factually correct - therefore, in his view, he was morally correct - or morality has no meaning to him - only the strict letter of the law.

If we're all going to play by those rules, I suggest we confine our discussion to who is indicted and who was found guilty. Otherwise, it must be OK.

Gone are the days when people resigned because they knew they had committed a moral wrong - against the Constitution or the people. Those days are long gone.

Nowadays, you have to convict someone in court before they resign.

He, you, nor anyone else can say it is ok for him invoke the war powers section of FISA because it specifically says "declaration of war by Congress." That is the end of the debate unless you can pretend you can argue with the written out letter of the law.
Sorry, but I demand consistency when it comes to applying the law. On one hand, Bush claims that Congress authorized him to go to war or else he wouldn't have done it. On the second hand, he claims he doesn't need Congressional authorization to take action to protect the nation. On the third hand, he claims authorization has the same force and effect as a declaration of war. On the fourth hand, he claims that war-time rules don't apply because there has been no declaration of war. On the fifth hand, he claims he is following the rules. On the sixth hand, he claims he doesn't have to. On the seventh hand, he claims the rules don't work so he has to break them. On the eighth hand, he claims that because of the war, he has the authority to do all this.

Now he has just as many hands as an octopus has arms -- and the same number of spines, too.

No, I'm saying that you could never get the warrant for blanket surveillance of millions of transmissions. Go back and read my posts.
Then you phrased your statement poorly. Go back and read what I quoted.

Sorry, but I demand consistency when it comes to applying the law.

The "law", and in particular the War Powers Act, and the authorizations for the use of military force given by Congress, are exercises in ass-covering doublespeak.

Demand consistency all you like - it's probably equally possible to argue that we're both in a war and not in a war.

I know that it's not a judge of morality. But President Clinton said explicitly, "I have done nothing illegal" and he was factually correct - therefore, in his view, he was morally correct - or morality has no meaning to him - only the strict letter of the law.
You are grasping at fucking straws.

Getting a blowjob is not illegal. Perjury is illegal, I don't know what when he said that, but depending when it's true.

You just fucking admitted that what Bush is doing is inherently unConstitutional. IE, super illegal. There is no moral argument as there was with Clinton.

You might want to follow this:
I think you're making the common mistake that you and others usually make, that I care one way or the other as vehemently as you do about what nations or leaders do.

You are obviously biased against the Democrats and doing your damndest to save Bush's ass.


On one hand, Bush claims that Congress authorized him to go to war or else he wouldn't have done it.
No declaration of war by Congress. The end. 1811 does not apply.

No, I'm saying that you could never get the warrant for blanket surveillance of millions of transmissions. Go back and read my posts.
Well, gosh, then, maybe blanket surveillance of millions of transmissions is not the thing to do.

Here are some questions for you: If we're monitoring millions of transmissions, how many people do we have actually doing that monitoring? In how many languages? What are they looking for? How long is it taking them? How much are they getting paid out of taxpayer dollars to do this? How much actual intelligence have they isolated so far?

Seriously, I cannot wait for the GAO report on this one.

You are grasping at fucking straws.

Getting a blowjob is not illegal. Perjury is illegal, I don't know what when he said that, but depending when it's true.

You just fucking admitted that what Bush is doing is inherently unConstitutional. IE, super illegal. There is no moral argument as there was with Clinton.

You might want to follow this:


You are obviously biased against the Democrats and doing your damndest to save Bush's ass.

No, if it's legal for Clinton to lie in sworn testimony, then it's legal for Bush to commit crimes as long as he isn't convicted.

No, I'm not doing my best to save Bush's ass. I am hoping, however, that you'll realize that the culture of corruption in this regard had its groundwork laid in stone before Bush ever was sworn into office.

We even have DeLay saying the EXACT same line - "I have done nothing illegal."

Moral outrage is irrelevant - as you said. So stop with the moral outrage. Either convict him or don't. Until he's convicted, in the absence of the validity of moral outrage (which, as I was raised, is perfectly valid), you'll have to accept him and his actions as "innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law".

The "law", and in particular the War Powers Act, and the authorizations for the use of military force given by Congress, are exercises in ass-covering doublespeak.

Demand consistency all you like - it's probably equally possible to argue that we're both in a war and not in a war.
The "law" is "ass-covering doublespeak"?

Well, I guess we all know what kind of America DK wants to live in.

Btw, if the law is designed to cover asses, why isn't Bush using it to cover his? If he had, he wouldn't be dealing with this controversy now. More Bush incompetence?

1: Bush apologists say that the wire taps are only being conducted on known or suspected terrorists within the country.
Well, first of all, I would never consider myself a Bush apologist, but I believe this message was partially aimed at me. I never said that the people the tap are beind conducted on are known or suspected terrorists. I said that the people that are being tapped are known to have been in contact with known or suspected terrorists. If John Smith (picked it to be pretty generic) has been having frequent conversations with Osama, I think it is the government's duty to make sure we find out what these calls are about. Maybe they are planning an attack with a nuclear bomb on New York City, and maybe they are gossiping about the different world leaders and which ones have crushes on Osama. (both very disturbing) Now I have previously stated that I would prefer there to be warrants taken out. But if for any reason the warrant is at the time unreasonable, I would not condemn the government for skipping that part.

The "law" is "ass-covering doublespeak"?

Well, I guess we all know what kind of America DK wants to live in.

Btw, if the law is designed to cover asses, why isn't Bush using it to cover his? If he had, he wouldn't be dealing with this controversy now. More Bush incompetence?

Looks like it's working so far. I don't see impeachment hearings on CSPAN right now, do you?

Looks like it's working so far. I don't see impeachment hearings on CSPAN right now, do you?
Well, it's a little early now, isn't it. After all, it took a Republican congress 4 years to drum up charges against Clinton for something wholly unrelated to what they were supposed to be investigating. It'll take a bit longer for a Republican Congress to come up with the balls to investigate one of their own for something more serious, assuming they are willing to put country before party in the first place.

If we're all going to play by those rules, I suggest we confine our discussion to who is indicted and who was found guilty. Otherwise, it must be OK.


Non sequiter. Plenty of things that Bush have done are not illegal, but are not OK either.

It's legal for Bush to commit crimes.

When has it ever been legal to commit crimes? Crimes, by definition, are illegal.

Well, it's a little early now, isn't it. After all, it took a Republican congress 4 years to drum up charges against Clinton for something wholly unrelated to what they were supposed to be investigating. It'll take a bit longer for a Republican Congress to come up with the balls to investigate one of their own for something more serious, assuming they are willing to put country before party in the first place.

I seriously doubt that either party would be willing to impeach their own.

If House and Senate had been strongly controlled by Democrats, there would have been no impeachment with Clinton - it would never have come up, regardless of any assertion by any special prosecutor.

To have his own party do him in would require something far more heinous. Like child molestation in the White House.

Now, if the Democrats controlled the House and Senate, we would be seeing the Watergate hearings again.

But, we're not.

So, in the world where morality is a bygone concept, as espoused by a previous President who made that abundantly clear, and who by word and deed taught us that it only counts if they convict you, and you never resign or admit fault unless you're convicted, then Bush is doing well - and remains perfectly legal.

When has it ever been legal to commit crimes? Crimes, by defination, are illegal.
See the history of the Clinton impeachment - it's only illegal if you're convicted. Otherwise, you don't resign and you never admit fault.

Looks like it's working so far. I don't see impeachment hearings on CSPAN right now, do you?
You are an instant gratification junkie, DK. You don't allow any time for a proper investigation to be conducted under the rules of the law -- just like Bush. Tsk, tsk -- patience is its own reward, you know.

When we take the time to do it right, we are more likely to get lasting results. For instance, because Bush couldn't be bothered to get warrants for his surveillance, he now has to deal with motions and appeals by defense attorneys for convicted or accused terrorists to get access to surveillance records under the rules of evidence. This headache -- and the possibility that a conviction might get overturned someday because of this -- could have been avoided if he hadn't been so impatiently self-centered in the first place.

You are an instant gratification junkie, DK. You don't allow any time for a proper investigation to be conducted under the rules of the law -- just like Bush. Tsk, tsk -- patience is its own reward, you know.

When we take the time to do it right, we are more likely to get lasting results. For instance, because Bush couldn't be bothered to get warrants for his surveillance, he now has to deal with motions and appeals by defense attorneys for convicted or accused terrorists to get access to surveillance records under the rules of evidence. This headache -- and the possibility that a conviction might get overturned someday because of this -- could have been avoided if he hadn't been so impatiently self-centered in the first place.
Probably why we assassinate or detain indefinitely the majority of people we identify as terrorists overseas.

Why bother with a trial and evidence? Extrajudicial assassination was made legal by Congress in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 for foreign suspects.

Lucky they didn't make it legal in the US, eh?

It's not lame.

They wanted to do blanket sweeps of transmission traffic. There's no way you could ever get a warrant for that (and to the comment that you could pass a law to allow it doesn't fly - the Constitution wouldn't allow it).

So, if you want to use data mining, traffic analysis, etc, as you normally do to foreign traffic, you'll NEVER get a warrant for it.

So it looks like Bush just went ahead, stopped asking the court, and did it.

So, what you're suggesting is; The NSa effectively wiretapped...EVERYBODY. And the FISA court wouldn't issue a warrant for that?!? Those unamerican bastards! ;)

No, if it's legal for Clinton to lie in sworn testimony, then it's legal for Bush to commit crimes as long as he isn't convicted.

No, I'm not doing my best to save Bush's ass. I am hoping, however, that you'll realize that the culture of corruption in this regard had its groundwork laid in stone before Bush ever was sworn into office.


Look, Clinton committecd purgery, thats valid.
But you are one of the only ones who still agrees with the Georgy-boy. And I don't think that Clinton lying about cheating on his wife qualifies as "laying the groundwork for corruption". Youre the one who was too busy looking at him to pay any damn attention at Rawanda! You're also probably one of the 37% of the pop. who still thinks he's a competent leader. And that's just because you're too damn biased to vote democrat! Face it, The man is a an over-zealous SOB, and at some point he's going to get either voted out of office, or shot! I'd be happy either way.

This is so much simpler in Canada.

See the history of the Clinton impeachment - it's only illegal if you're convicted. Otherwise, you don't resign and you never admit fault.
Do you enjoy pretending to be dumb?

Failure to convict on perjury does not mean that it's okay to commit perjury. Or do you intend, if you're ever called as a witness, to lie in court and then claim you should get away with it because the fact that Clinton didn't get impeached for perjury means it's okay to do it?

Look, Clinton committecd purgery, thats valid.
But you are one of the only ones who still agrees with the Georgy-boy. You are probably one of the 37% of the pop. who still thinks he's a competent leader. And that's just because you're too damn biased to vote democrat! Face it, The man is a an over-zealous SOB, and at some point he's going to get either voted out of office, or shot! I'd be happy either way.

This is so much simpler in Canada.

Evidently, quite a number of Americans thought that Bush was more competent than Kerry. Face it.

Maybe Americans don't care who gets their rights violated - as long as the government is arresting someone else.

To extend the argument, if the President derives that authority from the Commander in Chief clause, then isn't any legislation that diminishes that authority unconstitutional? Of course it isn't, and that's what makes his overall argument ludicrous.

indeed. but ludicrous or not, it's going to take some strong action by congress combined with enforcement by parts of the executive branch or military that are loyal to ye olde republic to stop it now. or revolution in the streets.

or i suppose we can play the "maybe they really will give up power when the crisis is over" game and hope for the best in the meantime.

Evidently, quite a number of Americans thought that Bush was more competent than Kerry. Face it.

Maybe Americans don't care who gets their rights violated - as long as the government is arresting someone else.
Oh please, more instances of Bush's uincompetence to meet the peoples needs have arisen since then. and of course, he had Jeb Bush's back the whole time!

Moral outrage is irrelevant - as you said. So stop with the moral outrage. Either convict him or don't. Until he's convicted, in the absence of the validity of moral outrage (which, as I was raised, is perfectly valid), you'll have to accept him and his actions as "innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law".
You, sir, are full of shit.

Do you enjoy pretending to be dumb?

Failure to convict on perjury does not mean that it's okay to commit perjury. Or do you intend, if you're ever called as a witness, to lie in court and then claim you should get away with it because the fact that Clinton didn't get impeached for perjury means it's okay to do it?

Clintonsqueaked by on a technicality. Perjury is defined as lying about material facts in evidence. The questions he got caught in lies about were rendered immaterial by the court. So his lies were technically immaterial lies.

He's a slippery bastard. ;)

Probably why we assassinate or detain indefinitely the majority of people we identify as terrorists overseas.

Why bother with a trial and evidence? Extrajudicial assassination was made legal by Congress in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 for foreign suspects.

Lucky they didn't make it legal in the US, eh?
You have no proof that they are doing that, either. In fact, there is no proof that the Bush administration is accomplishing anything at all in regards to terrorism except to get exposed breaking US law, violating international law, and embarrassing all Americans. I do not see a significant reduction in the number of star terrorists in the world. I don't see a reduction in terrorist recruitment.

All I see is you trying to tell the rest of us that we should be okay with having a trigger-happy,unrestrained murderer in charge of our lives. That's how you seem to be describing Bush, in a round-about way.

indeed. but ludicrous or not, it's going to take some strong action by congress combined with enforcement by parts of the executive branch or military that are loyal to ye olde republic to stop it now. or revolution in the streets.

or i suppose we can play the "maybe they really will give up power when the crisis is over" game and hope for the best in the meantime.

That's what they did with Lincoln. As I recall, he had interesting policies, like the suspension of habeas corpus, which later dissolved and was found to be wrong well after the crisis was over.

I seriously doubt that either party would be willing to impeach their own.

If House and Senate had been strongly controlled by Democrats, there would have been no impeachment with Clinton - it would never have come up, regardless of any assertion by any special prosecutor.

To have his own party do him in would require something far more heinous. Like child molestation in the White House.


Oh god, I would laugh...

Clintonsqueaked by on a technicality. Perjury is defined as lying about material facts in evidence. The questions he got caught in lies about were rendered immaterial by the court. So his lies were technically immaterial lies.

He's a slippery bastard. ;)
They didn't call him Slick Willy for only one reason. :D

Look, Clinton committecd purgery, thats valid.
But you are one of the only ones who still agrees with the Georgy-boy. And I don't think that Clinton lying about cheating on his wife qualifies as "laying the groundwork for corruption". Youre the one who was too busy looking at him to pay any damn attention at Rawanda! You're also probably one of the 37% of the pop. who still thinks he's a competent leader. And that's just because you're too damn biased to vote democrat! Face it, The man is a an over-zealous SOB, and at some point he's going to get either voted out of office, or shot! I'd be happy either way.

This is so much simpler in Canada.

Legally, Clinton never committed perjury. What he did is lie under oath. Before you say that's perjury, there is a legal test that must be met for that charge. The lie has to be deemed relevant to the case. Clinton's lie about Lewinsky's blowjobs was determined by a judge to be irrelevant to the case, throwing the perjury charge out the window.

Edit: Didn't see Lunatic's reply before I wrote this, it's the same point anyway

You have no proof that they are doing that, either. In fact, there is no proof that the Bush administration is accomplishing anything at all in regards to terrorism except to get exposed breaking US law, violating international law, and embarrassing all Americans. I do not see a significant reduction in the number of star terrorists in the world. I don't see a reduction in terrorist recruitment.

All I see is you trying to tell the rest of us that we should be okay with having a trigger-happy,unrestrained murderer in charge of our lives. That's how you seem to be describing Bush, in a round-about way.

Oh, but the evidence is just piling up! and he forgot to mention the torture, oh the torture! Bush even tried to suppress the anti-torture bill. What would make him do that, now?

Legally, Clinton never committed perjury. What he did is lie under oath. Before you say that's perjury, there is a legal test that must be met for that charge. The lie has to be deemed relevant to the case. Clinton's lie about Lewinsky's blowjobs was determined by a judge to be irrelevant to the case, throwing the perjury charge out the window.
Thus, since he didn't do anything illegal, he didn't do anything "wrong". Therefore, morality and ethics are not a factor anymore.
Therefore, you have to convict someone of something before they'll think about leaving office over a moral outrage.

Nice precedent, and now set in stone.

Legally, Clinton never committed perjury. What he did is lie under oath. Before you say that's perjury, there is a legal test that must be met for that charge. The lie has to be deemed relevant to the case. Clinton's lie about Lewinsky's blowjobs was determined by a judge to be irrelevant to the case, throwing the perjury charge out the window.

My mistake. He's right, the guy knows his law.

Oh, but the evidence is just piling up! and he forgot to mention the torture, oh the torture! Bush even tried to suppress the anti-torture bill. What would make him do that, now?
Well, obviously, he doesn't want a rule that says he can't do it -- despite his simlutaneous argument that the war gives him the power to do anything he thinks necessary to stop the bad guys regardless of the rules. But wait, that's not consistent with all the other arguments he makes simultaneously.

Thus, since he didn't do anything illegal, he didn't do anything "wrong". Therefore, morality and ethics are not a factor anymore.
Therefore, you have to convict someone of something before they'll think about leaving office over a moral outrage.

Nice precedent, and now set in stone.
You said your fucking self that what Bush is doing is so illegal that it is unConstitutional. The only thing they had on Clinton was a moral issue.

There is no moral issue. This is pure illegal, cut and dry.

Thus, since he didn't do anything illegal, he didn't do anything "wrong". Therefore, morality and ethics are not a factor anymore.
Therefore, you have to convict someone of something before they'll think about leaving office over a moral outrage.

Nice precedent, and now set in stone.
Not a precedent. Not set in any stone (sorry, DK, you don't have that authority). If morality and ethics are not factors in law, then what stands in law does not affect morality and ethics; therefore "illegal" and "wrong"/"immoral" do not follow each other and just because a thing may not be illegal, it does not follow that it is therefore not wrong or immoral. Your own argument defeats itself.

Thus, since he didn't do anything illegal, he didn't do anything "wrong". Therefore, morality and ethics are not a factor anymore.
Therefore, you have to convict someone of something before they'll think about leaving office over a moral outrage.

Nice precedent, and now set in stone.

The difference here is that Bush has broken the law...over and over again. The fact that he hasn't been convicted doesn't make it less illegal. Moral outrage isn't the issue here, legal outrage is. Personally, I'm outraged that someone so incredibly stupid is representing me to the rest of the world. Intellectual outrage for some reason doesn't get taken very seriously though.

You said your fucking self that what Bush is doing is so illegal that it is unConstitutional.

There is no moral issue. This is pure illegal, cut and dry.
Under the "new rules", you have to convict him in order to remove him from office.

In the old days, people used to resign because of moral outrage over perceived crimes. The good old days.

Someone removed the good old days. And you have no right to be outraged over any perceived crime UNTIL he's convicted (which is what many fans of Clinton told me and continue to tell me - I'm not allowed to be upset at all).

So stop being upset. Either he gets convicted, and you can dance in the street, or nothing happens and you have to be quiet.

You said your fucking self that what Bush is doing is so illegal that it is unConstitutional.

There is no moral issue. This is pure illegal, cut and dry.
But I don't think that we could have had this argument without morality entering into it. Let's face it we all felt sorry for ol' Mcain. Otherwise why should we care about the torture bill, unless because we feel unhappy about the suffering of our fellow man?

Under the "new rules", you have to convict him in order to remove him from office.

In the old days, people used to resign because of moral outrage over perceived crimes. The good old days.

Someone removed the good old days. And you have no right to be outraged over any perceived crime UNTIL he's convicted (which is what many fans of Clinton told me and continue to tell me - I'm not allowed to be upset at all).

So stop being upset. Either he gets convicted, and you can dance in the street, or nothing happens and you have to be quiet.
Please, if he doesn't get convicted it's only a matter of time before he gets shot. And then we dance in the street.

Under the "new rules", you have to convict him in order to remove him from office.

In the old days, people used to resign because of moral outrage over perceived crimes. The good old days.

Someone removed the good old days. And you have no right to be outraged over any perceived crime UNTIL he's convicted (which is what many fans of Clinton told me and continue to tell me - I'm not allowed to be upset at all).

So stop being upset. Either he gets convicted, and you can dance in the street, or nothing happens and you have to be quiet.

Be outraged all you want about Clinton. You think what he did is some unforgivable sin, I think what he did is human. What seems to be the common legal opinion is that what he did was not an impeachable offense, because charges were drawn up and he was not convicted. If the Republican party gets the balls to draw up charges for half of Bush's actions I have no doubt whatsoever that he'll be convicted, because his activities have been outright criminal.

Under the "new rules", you have to convict him in order to remove him from office.

In the old days, people used to resign because of moral outrage over perceived crimes. The good old days.

Someone removed the good old days. And you have no right to be outraged over any perceived crime UNTIL he's convicted (which is what many fans of Clinton told me and continue to tell me - I'm not allowed to be upset at all).

So stop being upset. Either he gets convicted, and you can dance in the street, or nothing happens and you have to be quiet.
There would be moral outrage, except, he did something actually illegal as opposed to morally offensive. Thus his supporters, like you, won't say shit against him and will shrug their shoulders and go "What can you do?" Then you will sit here and wag your fingers at people going "Clinton didn't do anything wrong" and make a long diatribe about how that is bullshit and/or makes what Bush is doing a-ok. Bullshit. Clinton did something morally offensive to the uptight, uninformed Americans thus they jumped his ass. Bush does something illegal but plays to that particular group of people so they ignore it and move on or challenge it as bullshit.

Be outraged all you want about Clinton. You think what he did is some unforgivable sin, I think what he did is human. What seems to be the common legal opinion is that what he did was not an impeachable offense, because charges were drawn up and he was not convicted. If the Republican party gets the balls to draw up charges for half of Bush's actions I have no doubt whatsoever that he'll be convicted, because his activities have been outright criminal.
Lying to the American public is the moral outrage that I had.

I could care less about him lying in court, or whether he got a blowjob.

But if he's going to get up and say "I never had sex with that woman", he is demonstrating a level of contempt for the American public as a whole.

But, I was told that moral outrage, especially over lying, is out of fashion and not allowed.

In times past, men used to resign their posts over simple moral outrages. I bet you wish you lived in those days now - catch Bush at something and he would resign in a cloud of scandal.

But someone paved the way - you no longer have to resign, admit anything, or even tell a simple truth. All you have to do is stick it out until you're convicted - and if they fail to convict - YOU NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG.

Be outraged all you want about Clinton. You think what he did is some unforgivable sin, I think what he did is human. What seems to be the common legal opinion is that what he did was not an impeachable offense, because charges were drawn up and he was not convicted. If the Republican party gets the balls to draw up charges for half of Bush's actions I have no doubt whatsoever that he'll be convicted, because his activities have been outright criminal.
Hear, Hear!

That's what they did with Lincoln. As I recall, he had interesting policies, like the suspension of habeas corpus, which later dissolved and was found to be wrong well after the crisis was over.

indeed. though it sure took them long enough on that one. but at least he had a legitimate crisis to hang his acts of tyrrany on. a constitutionally recognized one, no less. all bush has is the boogeyman.

The difference here is that Bush has broken the law...over and over again. The fact that he hasn't been convicted doesn't make it less illegal. Moral outrage isn't the issue here, legal outrage is. Personally, I'm outraged that someone so incredibly stupid is representing me to the rest of the world. Intellectual outrage for some reason doesn't get taken very seriously though.
That's because so few people have ever experienced intellectual outrage. ;)

That's because so few people have ever experienced intellectual outrage. ;)
Mostly Texans. ;)

indeed. though it sure took them long enough on that one. but at least he had a legitimate crisis to hang his acts of tyrrany on. a constitutionally recognized one, no less. all bush has is the boogeyman.

Bear in mind, Lincon was assasinated.

indeed. though it sure took them long enough on that one. but at least he had a legitimate crisis to hang his acts of tyrrany on. a constitutionally recognized one, no less. all bush has is the boogeyman.
Somehow I doubt that the people here who are outraged over wiretapping would condone the elimination of habeas corpus during the Civil War.

Nor would they like other Lincoln acts. My personal favorite is when he sent troops to the Maryland Legislature in Annapolis, Maryland, to prevent them from voting for secession (to leave the Union and join the South).

Soldiers entered the legislative chamber, and with each legislator at gunpoint, the vote was held.

Of course, they voted unanimously to stay in the Union.

This bickering is probably satisfying to those of you that are taking part, but the bigger question is ignored.

Should we let the government take more power for itself? Remember, because I'm sure the government doesn't, that WE give government the power to do its job. In every crisis where there has been either a real or a perceived threat to national security, the government -- not Republicans or Democrats, just Government -- has stretched the limits of its power in order to 'protect' us. When the crisis ends, the govenment has never yielded that powers that it has taken.

If the answer to this question is yes, then we need to forget about whether Bush acted within the law, or not. Congress must pass a law that explicitly prohibits the unauthorized wiretapping of any U.S. citizen or legal resident of the U.S. inside the borders of the United States. Continue to allow the retroactive approval by the FISA court, but make it very clear that evidence gathered by these wiretaps must comply with the law or it is not to be used in a court. Furthermore, any leads developed by illegally obtained intelligence are not admissable evidence, either.

If the law already exists, then it needs to be applied. We can sort out the 'who did what' problems later, This abuse of our rights needs to be stopped immediately.

Under the "new rules", you have to convict him in order to remove him from office.

In the old days, people used to resign because of moral outrage over perceived crimes. The good old days.

Someone removed the good old days. And you have no right to be outraged over any perceived crime UNTIL he's convicted (which is what many fans of Clinton told me and continue to tell me - I'm not allowed to be upset at all).

So stop being upset. Either he gets convicted, and you can dance in the street, or nothing happens and you have to be quiet.
There are no "new rules," Kimchi. Clinton didn't get convicted of anything because of the way the old rules work. Maybe you should try to learn how to deal with it instead of throwing whiny tantrums like a frustrated little kid who thinks it's not fair that he didn't get his way that one time. Life is full of tears and disappointments. You didn't get a Clinton impeachment, but you've more than punished the rest of us for it with this Bush presidency.

BTW, by your reasoning, the public should keep its mouth shut and never challenge authority, even when we see them doing something wrong. We should just let them get away with it because, if they're not already in jail, then obviously they haven't done anything wrong. That's the most ridiculous part of your entire stance on this issue. Such an argument would make it wrong to report a crime -- I mean, since the person hasn't been convicted, how can there be a crime? This position is nonsense.

This bickering is probably satisfying to those of you that are taking part, but the bigger question is ignored.

Should we let the government take more power for itself? Remember, because I'm sure the government doesn't, that WE give government the power to do its job. In every crisis where there has been either a real or a perceived threat to national security, the government -- not Republicans or Democrats, just Government -- has stretched the limits of its power in order to 'protect' us. When the crisis ends, the govenment has never yielded that powers that it has taken.

If the answer to this question is yes, then we need to forget about whether Bush acted within the law, or not. Congress must pass a law that explicitly prohibits the unauthorized wiretapping of any U.S. citizen or legal resident of the U.S. inside the borders of the United States. Continue to allow the retroactive approval by the FISA court, but make it very clear that evidence gathered by these wiretaps must comply with the law or it is not to be used in a court. Furthermore, any leads developed by illegally obtained intelligence are not admissable evidence, either.

If the law already exists, then it needs to be applied. We can sort out the 'who did what' problems later, This abuse of our rights needs to be stopped immediately.


Probably the best argument today, and the only one that makes sense.

The question I have is, if you aren't going to use the information in court, and you aren't going to use it as admissable evidence, it can still have a very high intelligence value.

Very high.

Under those conditions, I could tap every phone conversation and email in the US - as long as I'm not using them in court.

I've begun to wonder where we're capturing all those people whom we "render" to foreign countries.

There are no "new rules," Kimchi. Clinton didn't get convicted of anything because of the way the old rules work. Maybe you should try to learn how to deal with it instead of throwing whiny tantrums like a frustrated little kid who thinks it's not fair that he didn't get his way that one time. Life is full of tears and disappointments. You didn't get a Clinton impeachment, but you've more than punished the rest of us for it with this Bush presidency.

BTW, by your reasoning, the public should keep its mouth shut and never challenge authority, even when we see them doing something wrong. We should just let them get away with it because, if they're not already in jail, then obviously they haven't done anything wrong. That's the most ridiculous part of your entire stance on this issue. Such an argument would make it wrong to report a crime -- I mean, since the person hasn't been convicted, how can there be a crime? This position is nonsense.

Actually, Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't removed from office.

Somehow I doubt that the people here who are outraged over wiretapping would condone the elimination of habeas corpus during the Civil War.

Nor would they like other Lincoln acts. My personal favorite is when he sent troops to the Maryland Legislature in Annapolis, Maryland, to prevent them from voting for secession (to leave the Union and join the South).

Soldiers entered the legislative chamber, and with each legislator at gunpoint, the vote was held.

Of course, they voted unanimously to stay in the Union.
These are exactly the kind of acts that need to be stopped. Every opportunity a government uses to take power and destroy individual rights is one that needs to be resisted. Granted, habeas corpus was returned, but the expansion of federal powers that coincided with the Civil War certainly started the erosion of our individual liberty.

Mostly Texans. ;)
We said experience intellectual outrage, not cause it. ;) :p

Somehow I doubt that the people here who are outraged over wiretapping would condone the elimination of habeas corpus during the Civil War.

Nor would they like other Lincoln acts.

i know i don't. but then, i hold a minority viewpoint on the civil war - namely, that it was and is fine for states to leave the union, but it was also right to kick the crap out of the south and free their slaves.

(even better would have been to redistribute all the wealth and property that belonged to slave owners and overseers and anyone else who made their living off of slavery, and then deport those people to someplace unpleasant. then the new management of the states could have freely decided whether to rejoin the union or chart their own course. but i'm more of a john brown fan than most people, so ymmv.)

Actually, Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't removed from office.
Say, you're right about that. Thanks for the reminder. Now please explain this to Deep Kimchi.

EDIT: Wait, was he impeached, or just censured? I don't remember.

BTW, by your reasoning, the public should keep its mouth shut and never challenge authority, even when we see them doing something wrong. We should just let them get away with it because, if they're not already in jail, then obviously they haven't done anything wrong. That's the most ridiculous part of your entire stance on this issue. Such an argument would make it wrong to report a crime -- I mean, since the person hasn't been convicted, how can there be a crime? This position is nonsense.

No, this is what Democrats who love Clinton told me is the "new" way.

I thought that merely for lying to the American public - saying "I never had sex with that woman" - he should have resigned.

But I was told that was old fashioned - and that Clinton should never resign unless convicted.

So I'm a believer now. Until any politician is convicted, he stays in power. What's good for the Democrats is good news for everyone.

If it weren't for the House rules, under this new way of looking at things, DeLay should not have had to step down during his trial.

Say, you're right about that. Thanks for the reminder. Now please explain this to Deep Kimchi.

EDIT: Wait, was he impeached, or just censured? I don't remember.
I already know the difference.

Say, you're right about that. Thanks for the reminder. Now please explain this to Deep Kimchi.

EDIT: Wait, was he impeached, or just censured? I don't remember.
He was impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate. I don't think one branch of government can censure another. At least not in the U.S.

No, this is what Democrats who love Clinton told me is the "new" way.

Democrats that love Clinton are seriously misguided. He was a terrible president.

Only thing I'm glad about is that Bush is too stupid to use it often enough, if someone like Hilliary Clinton if she had her hands on it she would be nailing everyone.

No, this is what Democrats who love Clinton told me is the "new" way.

I thought that merely for lying to the American public - saying "I never had sex with that woman" - he should have resigned.

But I was told that was old fashioned - and that Clinton should never resign unless convicted.

So I'm a believer now. Until any politician is convicted, he stays in power. What's good for the Democrats is good news for everyone.

If it weren't for the House rules, under this new way of looking at things, DeLay should not have had to step down during his trial.
Boo-hoo, poor dear. So this is what happens when Kimchi loses his innocence -- he turns into a whiny prima-donna who insists that the law means nothing -- nothing!! -- if it didn't do what he wanted it to do in that one instance. What frigging tragedy for you.

Well, if getting caught lying to the public means that an elected official should resign, then Bush should be out by all means, as, when the Patriot Act was up for renewal, he specifically stated that he would never conduct surveillance within the US without warrants, and all the while that's exactly what he was doing. Clearly, a lie to the public.

In fact, if lying to the public is your criterion, then no president should ever be allowed to conduct secret programs of any kind, even if they are legal, as he would have to lie to the public in order to keep them secret.

Admit it, DK, you are debating from a bad temper and nothing more. Kindly drop this ridiculous line of argument.

I was gunna say that too but apparently he doesn't think twice about lying Presidents anymore because apparently every democrat he ever met told him not to

I was gunna say that too but apparently he doesn't think twice about lying Presidents anymore because apparently every democrat he ever met told him not to
Can't recall how many times I argued, how many people told me that resigning over a moral issue like lying to the American public on national television was old fashioned and never to be done again.

Hey, I don't even have to believe it for it to be true - do you see anyone resigning without being convicted nowadays?

Did DeLay resign? Looks like Cunningham resigned - after he was found guilty. In the old days, the appearance of impropriety WAS impropriety.

Not anymore. It's not a ridiculous argument. It's how things work today.

Can't recall how many times I argued, how many people told me that resigning over a moral issue like lying to the American public on national television was old fashioned and never to be done again.

Hey, I don't even have to believe it for it to be true - do you see anyone resigning without being convicted nowadays?

Did DeLay resign? Looks like Cunningham resigned - after he was found guilty. In the old days, the appearance of impropriety WAS impropriety.

Not anymore. It's not a ridiculous argument. It's how things work today.


I don't think anyone should resign because somebody can drum up national attention over a supposed scandal. Not even Bush. Although he has admitted to doing something to which he previously said he wasn't doing, I still think there should be a hearing and if convicted of a crime then he should be impeached. Times do change though, but I doubt anyone said you have no right to be outraged over someone telling a lie. Expecting someone to resign is a bit silly in my opinion though. You seem to be saying it is all because Clinton got away with it, but I think it's because the way the internet and other media can say anything about anyone at anytime these days that noone should believe anyone but the courts.

I don't think anyone should resign because somebody can drum up national attention over a supposed scandal. Not even Bush. Although he has admitted to doing something to which he previously said he wasn't doing, I still think there should be a hearing and if convicted of a crime then he should be impeached. Times do change though, but I doubt anyone said you have no right to be outraged over someone telling a lie. Expecting someone to resign is a bit silly in my opinion though. You seem to be saying it is all because Clinton got away with it, but I think it's because the way the internet and other media can say anything about anyone at anytime these days that noone should believe anyone but the courts.

Then you're playing EXACTLY by the rules that were pounded into me by so many Democrats.

Fine - then we shouldn't believe any of these stories about ANY politician until they're convicted - until then, it's pure speculation and political haymaking.

Then you're playing EXACTLY by the rules that were pounded into me by so many Democrats.

Fine - then we shouldn't believe any of these stories about ANY politician until they're convicted - until then, it's pure speculation and political haymaking.

Why should it be any other way? Why shouldnt public officials be allowed to defend accusations against them without having to leave office?

Why should it be any other way? Why shouldnt public officials be allowed to defend accusations against them without having to leave office?
I didn't need a court to tell me that "I never had sex with that woman" was an outright lie to the American public - sure, not a crime - but extremely offensive.

The same outrage you're seeing here - people are convinced that Bush went around the court - so they want him out of office.

Too bad for them it's not the good old days.

Fine - then we shouldn't believe any of these stories about ANY politician until they're convicted - until then, it's pure speculation and political haymaking.

except when they come out and say "yeah i did it, and i'm still doing it." there appears to be a slight difference between that and mere speculation.

beyond that, there is a difference between believing any accusations against a politician and demanding they step down or be tried for treason or whatever, and believing credible accusations and demanding that they be forcibly removed from office if they don't resign.

except when they come out and say "yeah i did it, and i'm still doing it." there appears to be a slight difference between that and mere speculation.

beyond that, there is a difference between believing any accusations against a politician and demanding they step down or be tried for treason or whatever, and believing credible accusations and demanding that they be forcibly removed from office if they don't resign.

The interesting juxtaposition of "I never had sex with that woman" and the stains on a blue dress took the lie beyond mere speculation for me. I could care less about a blowjob - or the prosecutor's case - all I had to hear was the Lie.

I understand how angry a lot of you are - I really do - and I'm giving you the SAME schtick I was given - people don't resign unless convicted.

People don't resign unless convicted.

I didn't need a court to tell me that "I never had sex with that woman" was an outright lie to the American public

Why? Was it actually a threesome?

Why? Was it actually a threesome?
That nice blue dress...

I was gunna say that too but apparently he doesn't think twice about lying Presidents anymore because apparently every democrat he ever met told him not to
Nothing like thinking for one's self, eh?

I didn't need a court to tell me that "I never had sex with that woman" was an outright lie to the American public - sure, not a crime - but extremely offensive.

The same outrage you're seeing here - people are convinced that Bush went around the court - so they want him out of office.

Too bad for them it's not the good old days.


Do you think the Republicans had a right to go public with his relationship with Lewinsky in the first place? Why should he have had to fess up about something that is nobody elses business but his and his families?

Why would it offend you that Clinton was tryign to keep his private life a secret from the American public?

Are you outraged at all about Bush having lied or since Democrats told you not to be mad about it you have given up on expecting truth from the President of the United States because you would rather be told how to think and act rather than feel how you feel because of some sense of personal morality?

I'm not a Democrat and care little for Clinton but I don't think that ever shoudl ahve been an issue at all.

And here people are not asking Bush to resign as far as I can tell. It seems to me the Democrats and Liberals you despise so much are playing by the rules you say they debated with you on for Clinton. They want a trial to see if the law was broken.

I didn't need a court to tell me that "I never had sex with that woman" was an outright lie to the American public - sure, not a crime
Then it wasn't and isn't relevant or important.

You are comparing an offense so criminal that he is violating the very basis of law our nation is based on (by your own admission) to a lie about something that isn't even a crime, much less any of your god damn business.

Not only is the former a crime but Bush admitted to the crime and said he would continue. They should have started getting together an impeachment hearing the very second that slipped from his lips.

Do you think the Republicans had a right to go public with his relationship with Lewinsky in the first place? Why should he have had to fess up about something that is nobody elses business but his and his families?
If it's in the purview of the special prosecutor, he has to answer truthfully. I am willing to bet that if Clinton had said, "Hell yeah, I had her" the public would have laughed the whole thing off.

Why would it offend you that Clinton was tryign to keep his private life a secret from the American public?
Public figures have no private life.

Are you outraged at all about Bush having lied or since Democrats told you not to be mad about it you have given up on expecting truth from the President of the United States because you would rather be told how to think and act rather than feel how you feel because of some sense of personal morality?
No, I'm not outraged at all - because in the world of politics, one's personal morality is not part of the scorekeeping anymore - you can lie at will and abuse power at will - and no one except the courts are expected to stop you. No politician today is expected to have any moral sense (except in a figurative way). They're just supposed to avoid legal problems.

And here people are not asking Bush to resign as far as I can tell. It seems to bme the Democrats and Liberals you despise so much are playign by the rules you say they debated with you on for Clinton. They want a trial to see if the law was broken.

There are some here who wish something worse than that - maybe you missed the three or four posts of that ilk.

If it's in the purview of the special prosecutor, he has to answer truthfully. I am willing to bet that if Clinton had said, "Hell yeah, I had her" the public would have laughed the whole thing off.
Then, praytell why he was in court having to lie in the first place.

Public figures have no private life.
They have little expectation of privacy, but they still have one.

Then, praytell why he was in court having to lie in the first place.

They have little expectation of privacy, but they still have one.

Looks like a fishing expedition to me. But, ever since the days of Watergate, it seems that every Presidency is going to get a special prosecutor in charge of Fishing. Whether or not they've done anything at all, because the opposition uses special prosecutors as a weapon.

And you must remember, that no matter what the reason for the court, you're not allowed to lie. And telling such a baldfaced one to the American public was just bad PR all around - like I said, if he had said, "hell yeah, I did", it would have been a Jay Leno moment and then quickly forgotten. The whole episode would have lost all of its steam.

And you must remember, that no matter what the reason for the court, you're not allowed to lie.

...about material facts.

And you must remember, that no matter what the reason for the court, you're not allowed to lie. And telling such a baldfaced one to the American public was just bad PR all around - like I said, if he had said, "hell yeah, I did", it would have been a Jay Leno moment and then quickly forgotten. The whole episode would have lost all of its steam.
What crap. The whole thing was about crucifying Clinton for being immoral, the lie just gave them something more like criminally tangible to latch onto.

To compare what Clinton did to what Bush is doing is bullshit. You admitted what Bush is doing is unConstitutional. Bush admitted he is doing. He said he will continue to do it. I'm sorry but when that kind of shit occurs it is 'Game Over', Insert Coin(s), and your ass is out of fucking coins.

What crap. The whole thing was about crucifying Clinton for being immoral, the lie just gave them something more like criminally tangible to latch onto.

To compare what Clinton did to what Bush is doing is bullshit. You admitted what Bush is doing is unConstitutional. Bush admitted he is doing. He said he will continue to do it. I'm sorry but when that kind of shit occurs it is 'Game Over', Insert Coin(s), and your ass is out of fucking coins.

If that were true, he would already be impeached.

So it's not true. You have to be convicted, and I don't see the Republicans rushing back to get in session to do it.

except when they come out and say "yeah i did it, and i'm still doing it." there appears to be a slight difference between that and mere speculation.

beyond that, there is a difference between believing any accusations against a politician and demanding they step down or be tried for treason or whatever, and believing credible accusations and demanding that they be forcibly removed from office if they don't resign.
There's also a difference between believing accusations and proving them. Kimchi would like to drop the proof requirement. He wants the rule to be guilty until proven innocent, but out of job at the first accusation no matter what, just like Joe McCarthy could ruin people's lives just by calling them Communists.

Kimchi wanted Clinton out of office. The fact was that the serious accusations against Clinton were either disproved or could not be proved (a subtle difference there). The only accusations that stuck were that he cheated on his wife, and that's not a crime, and that he lied about it in court, and the court decided not to do anything about that on that occasion. The court has the right to make that decision, even if Kimchi doesn't like it.

Since the law didn't do what Kimchi wanted that time, he has decided that law means nothing, that there is no right or wrong, and that presidents -- or at least George W. Bush -- can do whatever they want. After all, if one man didn't get punished for lying about his sex life, why should another man even get investigated when he admits in public that he has violated a law he was sworn to uphold?

But this ridiculous argument is working for him at least this much -- he has hijacked this thread into another Crimes o' Clinton time-waster. I'll get back in when it gets back on topic -- which is Bush and FISA.

This bickering is probably satisfying to those of you that are taking part, but the bigger question is ignored.

Should we let the government take more power for itself? Remember, because I'm sure the government doesn't, that WE give government the power to do its job. In every crisis where there has been either a real or a perceived threat to national security, the government -- not Republicans or Democrats, just Government -- has stretched the limits of its power in order to 'protect' us. When the crisis ends, the govenment has never yielded that powers that it has taken.

If the answer to this question is yes, then we need to forget about whether Bush acted within the law, or not. Congress must pass a law that explicitly prohibits the unauthorized wiretapping of any U.S. citizen or legal resident of the U.S. inside the borders of the United States. Continue to allow the retroactive approval by the FISA court, but make it very clear that evidence gathered by these wiretaps must comply with the law or it is not to be used in a court. Furthermore, any leads developed by illegally obtained intelligence are not admissable evidence, either.

If the law already exists, then it needs to be applied. We can sort out the 'who did what' problems later, This abuse of our rights needs to be stopped immediately.Congress has already passed that law--it's called FISA, and there's little doubt that Bush has acted extra-legally. Remember, he couldn't get Ashcroft to sign off on the program after it became apparent that they'd gone beyond what they'd originally claimed to be doing (which made the elevation of Gonzales to the AG that much more imperative for the administration).

As far as the admissability of the evidence is concerned, that will work itself out as cases get tossed or don't get tossed and get appealed regardless of what happens at the lower levels. Eventually, this segment will wind up with the Supremes.

But looking at the larger picture--does anyone really believe that with Gonzales as AG and a compliant Republican congressional leadership that Bush will be stopped, or even challenged on this? Not a hope in hell, as far as I'm concerned. Who'll do the investigating? Who will bring charges? Gonzales? He ought to be facing impeachment for his role in this, in my opinion.

If it's in the purview of the special prosecutor, he has to answer truthfully. I am willing to bet that if Clinton had said, "Hell yeah, I had her" the public would have laughed the whole thing off.

The public still laughed the whole thing off except for a few rabid right-wingers who wanted blood no matter what the outcome of the trial was.

Besides I asked if YOU personally thought it was necessary to being up Lewinsky? If YOU felt it had any bearing on anything and if so why and if not then what do you care what he does with his sex life?



Public figures have no private life.

Not in the eyes of some I guess. Although Public figures get more attention and find it harder to hide their private lives, I would still argue that they do indeed have and deserve private lives.



No, I'm not outraged at all - because in the world of politics, one's personal morality is not part of the scorekeeping anymore - you can lie at will and abuse power at will - and no one except the courts are expected to stop you. No politician today is expected to have any moral sense (except in a figurative way). They're just supposed to avoid legal problems.


So you were outraged at Clinton for having lied about something that doesn't concern you, me or anyone outside his family in anyway whatsoever, until Democrats told you to get over it. But then Bush lied about something that concerns the civil liberties of the entire nation, and you don't care because Clinton lied about a blowjob? Well that's your perogative although I feel it is highly misguided.



There are some here who wish something worse than that - maybe you missed the three or four posts of that ilk.


Out of 150 posts, I imagine there will be 3 or 4 posts from the far left calling for blood (although yes I did miss those -I didn't know those 3 or 4 posts were the ones you were responding to as you made you Bush is doing the same thing as Clinton so he shouldn't resign arguments), just as there are a few from the far right saying that Bush can do whatever he wants... while the majority of us are taking a sensible approach and asking for this to be looked into and appropriate legal action be taken if Bush did something illegal/unconstitutional.

I guess I just take exception to you seemingly painting all liberals or Democrats witht he same brush. I may do the same thing in some cases so it's understandable and I expect to be called on it when I do it... I am just doing unto others as blah blah blah

If that were true, he would already be impeached.

So it's not true. You have to be convicted, and I don't see the Republicans rushing back to get in session to do it.
It is the truth; the reality is the Republican officials are all partisan asshats standing around patting each other one the back and covering each other's asses because the Democrats don't have enough seats to do jack shit. And you know, but you are patting them on the back for corruption too.

Looks like a fishing expedition to me. But, ever since the days of Watergate, it seems that every Presidency is going to get a special prosecutor in charge of Fishing. Whether or not they've done anything at all, because the opposition uses special prosecutors as a weapon.

And you must remember, that no matter what the reason for the court, you're not allowed to lie. And telling such a baldfaced one to the American public was just bad PR all around - like I said, if he had said, "hell yeah, I did", it would have been a Jay Leno moment and then quickly forgotten. The whole episode would have lost all of its steam.

If I remember correctly, Clinton's first answer to the question was (paraphrasing here) "That's none of your damn business" The judge ordered him to answer, and then another judge later ruled that it was immaterial. I haven't yet seen a relevant comparison between Clinton and Bush though. Lying about a consentual extramarital relationship and lying about...hell, the whole long list of lies that have gotten us to where we are today are nowhere near each other.

If I remember correctly, Clinton's first answer to the question was (paraphrasing here) "That's none of your damn business" The judge ordered him to answer, and then another judge later ruled that it was immaterial. I haven't yet seen a relevant comparison between Clinton and Bush though. Lying about a consentual extramarital relationship and lying about...hell, the whole long list of lies that have gotten us to where we are today are nowhere near each other.
There is no relevant comparison and Kimchi fucking knows it--he's already shown through his comments on this thread that he doesn't give two shits for the Constitution, and by extension, for anything the US stands for, so it should be no surprise that he's making bullshit comparisons here.

Kimchi, let me explain something to you that no one else has mentioned in this whole argument about Clinton versus Bush. Those Senators who voted to acquit Clinton--and it was a bipartisan group, remmeber--didn't vote on his innocence of the charges. Their vote signified that they felt the charges against him did not meet the necessary level of seriousness to warrant removal from office. They did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors as required by the Constitution you seem so willing to spit on. The rest of your argument is straw man bullshit, and everyone reading it knows it.

You may want to live in a country with an imperial president. I don't. Neither do most Americans. Our system may have serious problems, but we're not supposed to be a dictatorship, and I'll be damned if I'll stand by while fucks like you try to convince us that we ought to be.

There is no relevant comparison and Kimchi fucking knows it--he's already shown through his comments on this thread that he doesn't give two shits for the Constitution, and by extension, for anything the US stands for, so it should be no surprise that he's making bullshit comparisons here.

Kimchi, let me explain something to you that no one else has mentioned in this whole argument about Clinton versus Bush. Those Senators who voted to acquit Clinton--and it was a bipartisan group, remmeber--didn't vote on his innocence of the charges. Their vote signified that they felt the charges against him did not meet the necessary level of seriousness to warrant removal from office. They did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors as required by the Constitution you seem so willing to spit on. The rest of your argument is straw man bullshit, and everyone reading it knows it.

You may want to live in a country with an imperial president. I don't. Neither do most Americans. Our system may have serious problems, but we're not supposed to be a dictatorship, and I'll be damned if I'll stand by while fucks like you try to convince us that we ought to be.


I could have cared less about the charges against Clinton at the time - all I cared was that he lied to the American people. And I didn't care about the conviction or impeachment - in the good old days, men resigned if they felt they couldn't be truthful with the public.

Well, since then, I've been told that I'm old fashioned. Even good old SB has explained it in a way that sounds EXACTLY like I remember.

No office holder should resign until convicted by a court.

Until then, they are "innocent until proven guilty".

I'm not saying it should be a dictatorship - I'm saying that someone changed the rules in the late 1990s - and made it possible for elected officials to stand up and stay in office, denying the obvious until they were convicted.

I could have cared less about the charges against Clinton at the time - all I cared was that he lied to the American people. And I didn't care about the conviction or impeachment - in the good old days, men resigned if they felt they couldn't be truthful with the public.

Well, since then, I've been told that I'm old fashioned. Even good old SB has explained it in a way that sounds EXACTLY like I remember.

No office holder should resign until convicted by a court.

Until then, they are "innocent until proven guilty".

I'm not saying it should be a dictatorship - I'm saying that someone changed the rules in the late 1990s - and made it possible for elected officials to stand up and stay in office, denying the obvious until they were convicted.What good old days were those? Politicians have always lied. It comes with the office. The issue has never been one of truthfulness--it's been one of the consequences of the lies. Nixon lied his ass off and only quit when it became obvious he was going to get tossed. Did LBJ quit after every lie he told during Vietnam? What about Reagan's lies during Iran-Contra? He didn't quit. So spare me this "good old days when men had honor" bullshit. Politicians lie to get to the top--that's how they get there.

I could have cared less about the charges against Clinton at the time - all I cared was that he lied to the American people. And I didn't care about the conviction or impeachment - in the good old days, men resigned if they felt they couldn't be truthful with the public.

Well, since then, I've been told that I'm old fashioned. Even good old SB has explained it in a way that sounds EXACTLY like I remember.

No office holder should resign until convicted by a court.

Until then, they are "innocent until proven guilty".

I'm not saying it should be a dictatorship - I'm saying that someone changed the rules in the late 1990s - and made it possible for elected officials to stand up and stay in office, denying the obvious until they were convicted.
I don't believe your claims that you're only concerned with the "appearance of impropriety." You know perfectly well that no "rule" ever required someone to quit their job just because someone accused them of something. That has always been a matter of personal choice on the part of the accused person. Sometimes, they don't give a shit whether everyone knows they're crooked (DeLay). Other times, they get forced out unfairly by accusations that can't be proved but can't be shaken off either. But most of the time, they get to defend themselves fairly and openly and face their accusers and all the rest of that. That's the law, and the law makes the rules. And you know it.

This BS about Clinton is just that -- it's just another version of the "but the other guy started it" defense that Bush loves so much. Clinton lied and didn't go to jail, so why shouldn't Bush be allowed to violate the law if he wants? Hey, the Inquisition tortured people, so why shouldn't America? Oh, and while we're at it, Cain murdered Abel without getting a warrant from god, so should Bush be allowed to do that, too?

Your arguments make no sense because you're just trying weasle up some excuse for Bush to avoid getting investigated for his extra-legal actions -- only there is no excuse.

I could have cared less about the charges against Clinton at the time - all I cared was that he lied to the American people. And I didn't care about the conviction or impeachment - in the good old days, men resigned if they felt they couldn't be truthful with the public.

Well, since then, I've been told that I'm old fashioned. Even good old SB has explained it in a way that sounds EXACTLY like I remember.

No office holder should resign until convicted by a court.

Until then, they are "innocent until proven guilty".

I'm not saying it should be a dictatorship - I'm saying that someone changed the rules in the late 1990s - and made it possible for elected officials to stand up and stay in office, denying the obvious until they were convicted.
Reality check: You want good old days, DK? Read The Politics of War by Walter Karp, first published in 1976. It's all about US politics during the Spanish-American War and WW1, and all by itself, it puts the laugh to your "good old days" nonsense. It almost makes Bush look not so bad -- until you realize that he's doing the exact same shit as those crooked, evil bastards 100 years ago. They were just better at it than him.

Let's say there's some gray area in the FISA act. I haven't read it and I don't intend to. I haven't read the Emergency Powers Act, or whatever it is that Bush claims gives him the authority to wiretap without a warrant either. I'll let folks with more time on their hands do that. But let's say the Emergency Powers Act trumps the FISA and the Administration is in the clear. That's why I say we should have an incontrovertable law that prohibits these exact actions. Okay, we can wait until the first case is settled and we find out which way it goes.

The 'secret' part of it still irritates me. This is a society that is based on the rule of law. Certainly Bush is acting in what he thinks is our best interests, namely security. But when he decides that existing law isn't good enough, and that he needs to bypass the safeguards that are in place, he has just put himself above the law.

Maybe information gained from these wiretaps will never be used to prosecute a single suspect. That will make it harder to show that the NSA overstepped their bounds at the request of the Administration. But the fact that the FISA laws were ignored and the actions were taken in secret shows that this Administration has complete contempt for the laws of this nation.

If this isn't cleared up and the actions that Bush authorized aren't found to be completely legal, I think we are looking at actions that require Bush to resign. No matter what the purpose, a public servant is bound to uphold laws, not ignore them.

Congress has already passed that law--it's called FISA, and there's little doubt that Bush has acted extra-legally. Remember, he couldn't get Ashcroft to sign off on the program after it became apparent that they'd gone beyond what they'd originally claimed to be doing (which made the elevation of Gonzales to the AG that much more imperative for the administration).

As far as the admissability of the evidence is concerned, that will work itself out as cases get tossed or don't get tossed and get appealed regardless of what happens at the lower levels. Eventually, this segment will wind up with the Supremes.

But looking at the larger picture--does anyone really believe that with Gonzales as AG and a compliant Republican congressional leadership that Bush will be stopped, or even challenged on this? Not a hope in hell, as far as I'm concerned. Who'll do the investigating? Who will bring charges? Gonzales? He ought to be facing impeachment for his role in this, in my opinion.

Let's say there's some gray area in the FISA act. I haven't read it and I don't intend to. I haven't read the Emergency Powers Act, or whatever it is that Bush claims gives him the authority to wiretap without a warrant either. I'll let folks with more time on their hands do that. But let's say the Emergency Powers Act trumps the FISA and the Administration is in the clear. That's why I say we should have an incontrovertable law that prohibits these exact actions. Okay, we can wait until the first case is settled and we find out which way it goes.

The 'secret' part of it still irritates me. This is a society that is based on the rule of law. Certainly Bush is acting in what he thinks is our best interests, namely security. But when he decides that existing law isn't good enough, and that he needs to bypass the safeguards that are in place, he has just put himself above the law.

Maybe information gained from these wiretaps will never be used to prosecute a single suspect. That will make it harder to show that the NSA overstepped their bounds at the request of the Administration. But the fact that the FISA laws were ignored and the actions were taken in secret shows that this Administration has complete contempt for the laws of this nation.

If this isn't cleared up and the actions that Bush authorized aren't found to be completely legal, I think we are looking at actions that require Bush to resign. No matter what the purpose, a public servant is bound to uphold laws, not ignore them.
I agree with you completely on this issue. I also believe that this matter of contempt for the law is key to the issue, and why it's important. To me, the most alarming thing about this is Bush's attitude that he should not be questioned about a thing like this, that he has no duty to answer the American people. This brings to a head all the warnings about giving up our liberties, giving too much power to the executive branch, undermining checks and balances, that were first brought up with the Patriot Act. It's clear that the power he requested was only the beginning with Bush. He is acting like a king, and if an independent investigation can remind him and others that a president is not a king, then it will be the most important and valuable thing our government can do.

Just to toss a little more gas on this fire: according to Senator Joe Biden, (who, despite being a shrill, yappy, little ratdog, is a Senator and helped write the relevant legislation), because there is a war on (thanks to Bush), the president actually has 15 days to get a retroactive surveillance warrant from the FISA Court.

That's 15 DAYS that he can monitor phones within the US BEFORE he has to decide whether there's any good information there and, then get a warrant to let him use that info legally.

Yeah, that is a huge burden on the government, unfairly tying the president's hands and thus ensuring the horrible doom of every American somehow, someday. :rolleyes:

You know, I could swear Ex Post Facto was one of the biggest bitching points the 13 Colonies had for declaring independence from the British Empire.

Then again, it shouldn't be a real surprise coming from a country founded by Puritans seeking to escape persecution so they can have fun persecuting others.

There's not much point in arguing with Kimchi. He's either an intentional troll or he's irrational.

There's not much point in arguing with Kimchi. He's either an intentional troll or he's irrational.

Kimchi is no troll.

Kimchi is no troll.
He's not irrational either, imo. None of these Busheviks are crazy, despite all their crazy talk. They have clear, succinct, little agendas which Bush and the neocons are serving, and they will say anything and sometimes even do anything to make sure that nothing interferes with those agendas, up to and including selling out their own country, all the rest of us, and their own best interests.